


5B 10? 


fa. 
O 
i 
~ 
© 











& 


. 
Vet 
§ 


? 
« 
Si 
f 
4 








op 
Z 
= 
ie 
‘a 
= 
=< 
< 
= 
= 
a 
oS 
— 






















Corporation 


_ Micro rporat 
vr Sh. ieee 













aedake< 


https://archive.org/details/commentarycriticOOelliric 


‘ 





D/ ele. WNW. 4+ SAV des, See AK Les/isf 
' | 


COMMENTARY, 


CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL, 


ON ST. PAUL’S 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 


WITH A 


REVISED TRANSLATION. 


BY 


CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, B.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON, AND LATE FELLOW 
OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 


AND 


Aan Introductory Hotice, 


BY 
CALVIN E. STOWE, D. D. », 22 


> > @°2 ’ a5 
PROFESSOR IN ANDOVER THROCLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
, ’ o 
We Fired » ; . 


ANDOVER: 


WARREN F. DRAPER. 


BOSTON: CROSBY, NICHOLS, LEE & Co. 
NEW YORK: JOHN WILEY. 
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH & CO. 


1860. 


key das 


+4" ia D xis 


‘Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 


| _ WARREN F. DRAPER, 
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Ma 


, Sie 5 oF) 


Fs F i ‘ 
- + 


aoe itte oO 
Electrotyped and Printed by W. F. Draper. 





te 


INTRODUCTORY NOTICE 


TO THE 


AMERICAN EDITION. 





Tae Commentaries of Professor Ellicott, modest and unas- 
suming as they are in tone, really mark an epoch in English 
sacred literature. They are as different from other English 
commentaries as De Wette’s are from the Germans who pre- 
ceded him; and what De Wette has been to German exegesis, 
Ellicott is and will be to the English. I speak of scholarship 
and mode of exhibition mainly ; but the remark is also true in 
another respect, for, as De Wette was in his time the soundest 
and most favorable type of German rationalism as applied to 
the exposition of Scripture, Ellicott now most fitly represents 
the clear common sense and reverential piety so happily char- 
acteristic of the best biblical expositors in the English church. 
Protestant Germany only could have produced a:-De Wette, 
and Protestant England only, an Ellicott. 

It is the professed object of both these writers, by a severe 
and purely grammatical analysis of the language of the sacred 
penmen, to ascertain precisely the ideas which they meant to 
convey ; and to express the results of this analysis in the 
simplest and briefest manner possible, without reference to 
theological systems, or ecclesiastical prepossessions, or practical 
inferences. This method must lie at the foundation of all true 
exegesis, and, to those who receive the Bible as the word of 
God, must form the basis of all Christian theology. Yet it is 
a method very seldom followed with any good degree of strict- 
ness, and it is not a method which is generally particularly 
interesting to theologians and preachers. It differs from the 
usual style of commentary as pure wheat differs from mer- 


272518 


II INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. 


chantable flour. Though the ascertainable purity of the wheat 
is acknowledged to be a great advantage, there is the trouble of 
grinding it before it can be made into bread. Theologizing 
and sermonizing commentary, though everywhere intermingled 
with the speculations and prepossessions of the commentator, © 
is generally preferred to a severe and strictly linguistic exege- 
sis, because, though less pure, it furnishes the material more 
ready for immediate use. But which method is it that really 


takes the Bible as the sufficient and only authoritative rule of _ 


Christian faith and practice, and follows out to its legitimate 
results the fundamental principle of Protestantism? There 
can be but one answer to this question ; and it is this, the only 
truly biblical and Protestant method of commentary, which 
Professor Ellicott has conscientiously, consistently, and suc- 
cessfully pursued. 

It is the crowning excellence of these commentaries, that 
they are exactly what they profess to be, critical and gram- 
matical, and therefore, in the best sense of the term, eze- 
getical. It is no part of the author’s object to theologize or to 
sermonize, or to make proof-texts, or to draw inferences or to 
repel them, but simply to interpret the language of the sacred 
writers ; and this object he accomplishes. He first, with the 
utmost care and the most conscientious laboriousness, gives the 
reader a correct text, by means of a widely extended comparison 
of original MSS., ancient translations, and the best editions. 
The amount of hard work evidently expended on this part of 
his undertaking is, to one who knows how to appreciate it, 
almost appalling. His results are worthy of all confidence. 
He is more careful and reliable than Tischendorf, slower and 
more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently 
laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the 
exception, perhaps, of Tregelles. Having thus ascertained the 
text, he then goes to work lexically and grammatically upon 
every word, phrase, and sentence which it offers; and here 
again is everywhere seen the real labor limae of the untiring 
and conscientious scholar. Nothing escapes his diligence, noth- 
ing wears out his patience. His exegetical conclusions are 
stated briefly and modestly, and with the utmost simplicity. 


INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. Ill 


His references to other opinions and other writers, and to all the 
requisite authorities, are abundantly copious for the purposes 
of the most thorough study. The marginal indications of the 
course of thought are exceedingly judicious and helpful; and 
the full translations given at the close of each Commentary 
harmonize with all the other parts of the work. Here the 
constant marginal quotations from the older translators give 
the reader the best possible opportunity for an extensive com- 
parison, which would otherwise, in most cases, be quite impos- 
sible, for want of access to the books. 


The reader will be gratified to learn something of the his- 
tory of the unpretending scholar who has already done so 
much, and who gives promise of. so much more. CHARLES 
Joun Huiicorr is of an old Devonshire family, a branch of 
which early emigrated to America, and still has descendants 
here. He was born in 1819, the son of Rev. Charles Spencer 
Ellicott, Rector of Whitwell in Rutlandshire. He studied at 
the grammar schools of Oakham and Stamford, and afterwards 
entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, of which society he be- 
came a Fellow in 1844. In 1848 he married and took the 
Rectorship of Pilton,in Rutlandshire, which he held till the 
beginning of 1856; when, for the sake of having access to 
large public libraries, he resigned his living and returned to 
Cambridge. In 1858 he was appointed one of the select 
preachers before the University, and prepared and published a 
volume of sermons on the “ Destiny of the Creature”? (Rom. 
8:19 ff.). He received the same appointment again the next 
year, and was also made Hulsean Lecturer. In this capacity 
he delivered a course of lectures on the connection of the 
events in the life of Christ, which are now in press, and will 
soon be published. In 1858, also, he was appointed to succeed 
Professor Maurice in the professorship of Divinity at King’s 
College, London, which office he still holds. On the 20th of 
February, 1860, while on a journey from Cambridge to London, 
in fulfilment of the duties of his office, he came very near 
losing his life by a shocking accident on the Eastern Counties 
Railway. Three persons in the same compartment with him 


IV INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. 


were instantly killed, and he had both legs broken, and lis 
arm and head were severely scalded. His life was saved by 
his throwing himself upon the bottom of the carriage at the 
moment when the shock was greatest. He has now recoy- 
ered from his injuries and is pursuing his work with undimin- 
ished zeal and success. He has already published on all the 
epistles of Paul, except Corinthians and Romans, and these he 
has now in hand, and will in due time complete. 


The American publisher will issue the successive volumes, 
as rapidly as circumstances will permit, in the same order with 
the English (the next being the epistle to the Ephesians), till 
the whole series is in the hands of our scholars. It is to be 
hoped also that the American publishers of Alford’s work on 
the Greek Testament will speedily complete that, as the last 
volume is now in press in England. It is a different kind of 
commentary from Ellicott’s, though equally useful in its own 
way. It includes the whole of the New Testament, and has 
more of what critics call introduction in the shape of extended 
and elaborate prolegomena to the several books, and is design- 
edly of as popular a cast as, from the nature of the case, a | 
scholarly commentary on a Greek book can be. The two works 
cannot at all interfere with each other. Both are an honor to 
the English theological literature of the present generation ; 
each in its own sphere supplies an urgent want; and they both 
ought to be accessible to American students at as cheap a rate 
as possible. 

C. E. STOWE. 


THEOL. SEM., ANDOVER, MASS. 
Aug. 80, 1860. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 





THE following commentary is the first part of an attempt to elucidate St. 
Paul’s Epistles, by systematically applying to the Sacred Text the present 
principles of grammar and criticism. 

It is the result of several years’ devotion to the study of biblical Greek, 
and owes its existence to the conviction that, in this country, the present very 
advanced state of philology has scarcely been applied with sufficient rigor to 
the interpretation of the New Testament. Our popular commentaries are too 
exclusively exegetical,’ and presuppose, in the ordinary student, a greater 
knowledge of the peculiarities of the language of the New Testament than it 
is at all probable he possesses. Even the more promising student is sure to 
meet with two stumbling-blocks in his path, when he first maturely enters 
upon the study of the Holy Scripture. 

In the first place, the very systematic exactitude of his former discipline in 
classical Greek is calculated to mislead him in the study of writers who 
belonged to an age when change had impaired, and conquest had debased 
the language in which they wrote ;—his exclusive attention to a single 
dialect, informed, for the most part, by a single and prevailing spirit, ill pre- 
pares him for the correct apprehension of writings in which the tinge of na- 
tionalities, and the admixture of newer and deeper modes of thought are both 
distinctly recognizable ; — his familiarity with modes of expression, which had 
arisen from the living wants of a living language, ill prepares him correctly 
and completely to understand their force when they are reproduced by aliens 
in kindred and customs, and strangers, and even more than strangers in 
tongue. Let all these diversities be fairly considered, and then, without enter- 
ing into any more exact comparisons between biblical and classical Greek, it 
will be difficult not to admit that the advanced student in Attic Greek is 
liable to carry with him prejudices, which may, for a time at least, interfere 
with his full appreciation of the outward form in which the Sacred Oracles 


1I must explain the meaning in which, I use this word when in contradistinction to 
“grammatical.” By a grammatical commentary, I mean one in which the principles of 
grammar are either exclusively or principally used to elucidate the meaning: by an ezxeget- 
ical commentary, one in which other considerations, such as the circumstances or known 
sentiments of the writer, etc., are also taken into account. I am not quite sure that Iam 
correct in thus limiting ‘‘ exegetical,” but I know no other epithets that will serve to con- 
vey my meaning. 


, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


are enshrined. No better example of the general truth of these observations 
could be adduced than that of the illustrious Hermann, who, in his disquisi- 
tion on the first three chapters of this very epistle, has convincingly shown, 
how even perceptions as accurate as his, and erudition as profound, may still 
signally fail, when applied, without previous exercise, to the interpretation of 
the New Testament. . 

A second stumbling-block that the classical student invariably finds in his 
study of the New Testament, is the deplorable state in which, till within the 
last few years, its grammar has been left. It is scarcely possible for any one 
unacquainted with the history and details of the grammar of the N. T. to 
form any conception of the aberrant and unnatural meanings that have been 
assigned to the prepositions and the particles; many of which cling to them 
in N. T. lexicons to this very day.’ It requires a familiar acquaintance with 


the received glosses of several important passages fo conceive the nature of — 


the burdens hard to be borne, which long-suffering Hebraism —‘ that hidden 
helper in all need,’ as Liicke? calls it — has had to sustain ; and how genera- 
tions of excellent scholars have passed away without ever overcoming their 
Pharisaical reluctance to touch one of them with the tip of the finger. Then, 
again, grammatical figures have suffered every species of strain and distor- 
tion; enallage, hendyadys, metonymy, have been urged with a freedom in the 
N. T. which would never have been tolerated in any classical author, however 
ill-cared for, and however obscure. Here and there in past days a few pro- 
testing voices were raised against the uncritical nature of the current inter- 
pretations; but it is not, in Germany, till within a very few years, till the 
days of Fritzsche and Winer, that they have met with any response or recog- 
nition; and, among ourselves, even now, they have secured only a limited 
and critical audience. 

It thus only too often happens, that, when a young man enters, for the first 
time, seriously upon the study of the N. T., it is with such an irrepressible 
feeling of repugnance to that laxity of language, which he is led to believe is 
its prevailing characteristic, that he either loses for the language of inspira- 
tion that reverence which its mere literary merits alone may justly claim; or 
else, under the action of a better though mistaken feeling, he shrinks from 
applying to it that healthy criticism to which all his previous education had 
inured his mind. The more difficult the portion of Scripture, the more sen- 
sibly are these evils felt and recognized. 

It is under these feelings that I have undertaken a commentary on St. 
Paul’s Epistles, which, by confining itself to the humbler and less ambitious 


1 That this language is in no way overstrained may be easily seen by the notices in 
Winer’s Grammar, on any leading preposition or conjunction. fy is a difficult preposition 
in the N T., but it would requise a considerable amount of argument to make us believe it 
could ever, even in Heb. xiii. 9, bear the meaning of ex! See Winer, Gr. § 52, a, p. 466 (Ed. 5). 

2 Liicke, on John iii. 20, vol. iii. p. 241. 


aff 
a4: 
ee 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. VII 


sphere of grammatical details, may give the student some insight into the 
; language of the New Testament, and enable him with more assured steps, to 
ascend the difficult heights of exegetical and dogmatical theology.. My own 
studies have irresistibly impelled me to the conviction, that, without: making 
any unnecessary distinctions between grammar and exegesis, we are still 
to recognize the necessity, — of first endeavoring to find out what the words 
actually convey, according to the ordinary rules of language ; then, secondly, 
of observing the peculiar shade of meaning that the context appears to im- 
part. Too often this process has been reversed; the commentator, on the 
streneth of some ‘ received interpretation’ or some dogmatical bias, has stated 
what the passage ought to mean, and then has been tempted, by the force of 
bad example, to coerce the words ‘per Hebraismum,’ or ‘ per enallagen,’ to 
yield the required sense. This, in many, nay, most cases, I feel certain, has 
been done to a great degree unconsciously, yet still the evil effects remain. 
God’s word, though innocently, has been dealt deceitfully with; and God’s 
word, like His Ark of the Covenant, may not, with impunity, be stayed up 
by the officiousness of mortal aid. 

I have, then, in all cases, striven, humbly and reverently, to elicit from the 
words their simple and primary meaning. Where that has seemed at variance 
with historical or dogmatical deductions, — where, in fact, exegesis has 
seemed to range itself on one side, grammar on the other, —I have never 
failed candidly to state it; where it has confirmed some time-honored inter- 
pretation, I have joyfully and emphatically cast my small mite into the great 
treasury of sacred exegesis, and have felt gladdened at being able to yield 
some passing support to wiser and better men than myself.’ This, however, 
I would fain strive to impress upon my reader, to whatever party of the 
Church (alas! that there should be parties) he may chance to belong, that, as 
God is my witness, I have striven to state, in perfect candor and singleness of 
heart, all the details of interpretation with which I have come in contact. I 
have sought to support no particular party, I have desired to yield counte- 
nance to no peculiar views. I will candidly avow that on all the fundamen- 
tal points of Christian faith and doctrine my mind is fully made up. It is not 
for me to sit in judgment upon what is called the liberal spirit of the age, but, 
without evoking controversies into which I have neither the will nor the abil- 


1 Amidst all these details, I have, I trust, never forgotten that there is something higher 
than mere critical acumen, something more sure than grammatical exactitude; something 
which the world calls the *‘ theological sense,” but which more devout thinkers recognize 
as the assisting grace of the Eternal Spirit of God. Without this, without also a deeper 
and more mysterious sympathy with the mind of the sacred writer whom we are presuming 
to interpret, no mere verbal discussions can ever tend truly to elucidate, no investigation 
thoroughly to satisfy. I trust, indeed, that I have never been permitted to forget these 
golden words of him whom of all commentators I most honor and revere: — 003€ yap det 
Te phuaro, youve eerdew, emel WoAAR EVeTa TA arom huara’ ovdE Thy Ack Ka EavThv 
Bacovitew, GAAX TH Stavolga mpocéxerv TOD ypdporvTos. Chrysost. 
tom. x. p. 674 B (ed. Bened.) 


Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 


ity to enter, I may be permitted to say, that upon the momentous subject of 
the inspiration of Scripture, I cannot be so untrue tomy own deepest con- 
victions, or so forgetful of my anxious thoughts and investigations, as to affect 
a freedom of opinion which I am very far from entertaining.- I deeply feel 
for those whom earth-born mist and vapor still hinder from beholding the full 
brightness and effulgence of divine truth; I entertain the most lively pity for 
those who still feel that the fresh fountains of Scripture are, in all the bitter- 
ness of the prophet’s lamentation, only ‘ waters that fail ;’—I feel it and en- 
tertain it, and I trust that no ungentle word of mine may induce them to 
cling more tenaciously to their mournful convictions, yet still I am bound to 
say, to prevent the nature of my candor being misunderstood, that through- 
out this commentary the full’ inspiration of Scripture has been felt as one of 
those strong subjective convictions to which every hour of meditation adds 
fresh strength and assurance. Yet I have never sought to mask or disguise a 
difficulty: I have never advanced an explanation of the truth of which I do 
not, myself at least, feel convinced. I should shrink from being so untrue to 
myself, I should tremble at being so presumptuous towards God; as if He 
who sent the dream may not in His own good time send ‘ the interpretation 
thereof.’ That there are difficulties in Scripture, — that there are difficul- 
ties in this deep Epistle, I both know and feel, and I have, in no case, shrunk 
from pointing them out; but I also know that there is a time, — whether in 
this world of unrest, or in that rest which remaineth to God’s people, I know 
not,— when every difficulty will be cleared up, every doubt dispersed: and 
it is this conviction that has supported me, when I have felt and have been 
forced to record my conviction, that there are passages where the world’s wis- 
dom has not yet clearly seen into the depth of the deep things of God. 
Before I wholly leave this momentous subject, I would fain plead its 
importance in regard to the method of interpretation which I have endeay- 
ored to follow. Iam well aware that the current of popular opinion is now 
steadily setting against grammatical details and investigations. It is thought, 
I believe, that a freer admixture of history, broader generalizations, and 
more suggestive reflections, may enable the student to catch the spirit of his 
author, and be borne serenely along without the weed and toil of ordinary 
travel. Upon the soundness of such theories, in a general point of view, I 
will not venture to pronounce an opinion; I am not an Athanase, and can- 
not confront a world; but, in the particular sphere of Holy Scripture, I may, 
perhaps, be permitted to say, that if we would train our younger students to 
be reverential thinkers, earnest Christians, and sound divines, we must habit- 
uate them to a patient and thoughtful study of the words and language of 


1 I avoid using any party expressions. I would not wish, on the one hand, to class myself 
with such thinkers as Calovius, nor could I subscribe to the Formula Consensus Helvetici ; 
but lam far indeed from recognizing that admixture of human imperfection and even 
error, which the popular theosophy of the day now finds in the Holy Scripture. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX 


Scripture, before we allow them to indulge in an exegesis for which they are 
immature and incompetent. If the Scriptures are divinely inspired, then 
surely it is a young man’s noblest occupation, patiently and lovingly to note 
every change of expression, every turn of language, every variety of inflec- 
tion, to analyze and to investigate, to contrast and to compare, until he has 
obtained some accurate knowledge of those outward elements which are per- 
meated by the inward influence and powers of the Holy Spirit of God. 
As he wearisomely traces out the subtle distinctions that underlie some 
illative particle, or characterize some doubtful preposition, let him cheer 
himself with the reflection that every effort of thought he is thus enabled to 
make, is (with God’s blessing) a step towards the inner shrine, a nearer 
approach to a recognition of the thoughts ofan Apostle, yea, a less dim 
perception of the mind of Christ. 

No one who feels deeply upon the subject of inspiration will allow himself 
to be beguiled into an indifference to the mysterious interest that attaches 
itself to the very grammar of the New Testament. 

I will then plead no excuse that I have made my notes so exclusively crit- 
ical and grammatical. I rejoice rather that the awakening and awakened 
interest for theology in this country is likely to afford me a plea and a justifi- 
cation for confining myself to a single province of sacred literature. Al- 
ready, I believe, theologians are coming to the opinion that the time for 
compiled commentaries is passing away. ‘ Our resources are now too abun- 
dant for the various details of criticism, lexicography, grammar, exegesis, his- 
tory, archeology, and doctrine, to be happily or harmoniously blended in 
one mass. One mind is scarcely sufficiently comprehensive to grasp prop- 
erly these various subjects; one judgment is scarcely sufficiently discrim- 
inating to arrive at just conclusions on so many topics. The sagacious critic, 
the laborious lexicographer, the patient grammarian, the profound exegete, 
the suggestive historian, and the impartial theologian, are, in the present 
state of biblical science, never likely to be united in one person. Excel- 
lence in any one department is now difficult; in all, impossible. I trust, then, 
that the time is coming when theologians will carry out, especially in the 
New Testament, the principle of the division of labor, and selecting that 
sphere of industry for which they are more particularly qualified, will, in 
others, be content to accept the results arrived at by the labors of their 
contemporaries.’ 


1 In the present Epistle, there are distinct and instructive instances of the application of 
this principle. Hilgenfeld has published a recent edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, 
in which distinct prominence is given to historical and chronological investigations. Dr. 
Brown has lately devoted some expository discourses nearly exclusively to the doctrine 
and practical teaching of the Epistle; while Mr. Veitch has supplied him with grammatical 
annotations. Both of these works have their demerits as well as their merits, but, at any 
rate, they show that their authors had the good sense to confine themselves to those depart- 
ments of interpretation for which they felt tlhe greatest aptitude. 


2 


x PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


The most neglected portion of the New Testament literature is its lexicog- 
raphy; and this is the more inexcusable, as the. excellent concordance of 


Bruder has been now twelve years before the world. I have here suffered 


greatly from want of sound help; and in addition to having frequently to— 


draw solely from my own scanty resources in this department, and to leave 
my own more immediate subject to discuss points which i should have gladly 
found done to my hand, I have also had the thankless task of perpetually 
putting my readers on their guard against the overhasty and inaccurate 
classifications of Bretschneider and others. I have generally found Bret- 
schneider’s Lexicon the best; but the pages of my commentary will abun- 
dantly show how little reliance I have been able to place upon him. I 
rejoice to say that Dr. Scott, master of Baliol College, is engaged on a Lex- 
icon to the N. T.; and those who know his eminent qualifications for the 
task must feel, as I do, the most perfect confidence in the way in which it 
will be executed. I regret that it was too little advanced to be of any use 
to me in this commentary. The general lexicon (beside that of Stephens) 
which I have chiefly used, is the edition of Passow’s Lexicon by Palm and 
Rost, which I cannot help thinking is by very far the best lexicon, in a mode- 
rate compass, that we at present possess. ‘I'he prepositions, in particular, are 
treated remarkably well, and very comprehensively. 

The synonyms of the Greek Testament, a most important subject, have 
been greatly neglected. We have now a genial little volume, from one who 
always writes felicitously and attractively upon such subjects; but the agree- 
able author will not, I am sure, be offended when I say that it can scarcely 
be deemed otherwise than, as he himself modestly terms it, a slight contribu- 
tion to the subject. We may fairly trust that an author who has begun so 
well will continue his labors in a more extended and comprehensive form. 
As Mr. Trench’s work came too late into my hands, I have principally used 
the imperfect work of Tittman; but I perfectly agree with Mr. Trench in 
his estimate of its merits. 

In the Grammar of the N. T. we are now in a fairly promising state. 
The very admirable work of Winer has completely rehabilitated the subject. 
It is a volume that I have studied with the closest attention, and to which I 
am under profound obligations. Still, it would not be candid if I did not 
admit that it has its weak points. I do not consider the treatment of the 
particles (a most important subject in St. Paul’s epistles) at all equal to that 
of the prepositions, or by any means commensurate with our wants on this 
portion of grammar; the cases also might, perhaps, be more successfully 
handled. The great fault of the book is its superabundance of reference to 
the notes and commentaries on classical authors. In many cases these are 
of high importance; but, in a vast quantity of others, as I have often found 
to my cost, but little information is to be derived from the source to which 
the reader is referred. Mr. Green’s Grammar I consider a work of great 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI 


ability, but too short and unsystematic to be of the use it might otherwise 
have been to the student. I have, therefore, been obliged to use freely other 
grammatical subsidies than those which more particularly bear upon the New 
Testament.’ My object has been throughout to make my references more to 
grammars and professed repertories of similar information, than to notes or 
commentaries on classical authors ; for I am convinced that a good reference 
to a good grammar, though not a very showy evidence of research, is a truly 
valuable assistance; while a discursive note in an edition of a classic, from 
its want of a context, frequently supplies little real information. I have 
allowed myself greater latitude in references to the notes of commentators 
on the N. T., for here the similarity of language, and frequently of subject, 
constitutes a closer bond of union. In particular, I have used Fritzche’s 
edition of the Romans nearly as a grammar, so full is it and so elaborate in 
all details of language. As a grammarian, I entertain for him the highest 
respect; but I confess my sympathy with him as a theologian is not great, 
nor can I do otherwise than deplore the unjust levity with which he often 
treats the Greek Fathers, and the tone of bitterness and asperity which he 
assumes towards the learned and pious Tholuck. It is a sad evidence of an 
untouched heart and unchastened spirit, when a commentator on the New 
Testament leaves the written traces of his bitterness on the margins of the 
Covenant of Love. 

The same principle that has induced me to refer to repertories and sys- 
tematic treatises on grammar, has also influenced me whenever I have been 
led into dogmatical questions. I have sought, in most cases, information 
from writers who have made the whole subject their study. I have freely 
used Bishop’s Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica, Waterland’s Works, and such 
other of our great English divines as I have the good fortune to be ac- 
quainted with. I have used with profit the recent and popular treatise on 
St. Paul’s doctrine by Usteri, and that by Neander in his Planting of Chris- 
tianity; both of which, with, perhaps, some reservations, may be recom- 
mended to the student. I regret that I cannot speak with so much freedom 
of the discussions of the clever and critical Ferdinand Baur in his Apostel 
Paulus. I have referred to him in a few cases, for his unquestionable ability 
has seemed to demand it, but it has been always cautiously and warily; nor 
do I at all wish to commend him to the notice of any student except of 


1 I have espec‘ally used the admirable and (in my opinion) wholly unrivalled syntax of 
Bernhardy, the good compendious syntax of Madvig, the somewhat heavy treatise on the 
same subject by Scheuerlein, Jelf’s Grammar, and the small Greek grammar by Dr. 
Donaldson, which, though unpretending in form and succinct in its nature, will never be 
consulted. even by the advanced student, without the greatest advantage. On the particles, 
1 have principally used the somewhat clumsy though useful work of Hartung, and the very 
able and voluminous notes of Klotz on Drevarius. This latter work the student will rarely 
consult in vain. I have also derived some assistance from Thiersch’s very good dissertation 
on the Pentateuch, 


XII PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


advanced knowledge and of fully fixed principles. The other books and 
authorities which I have cited will sufficiently speak for themselves. 

I desire briefly, in conclusion, to allude to the general principles which 
I have adopted in the construction of the text, the compilation of the notes, 
_and the revision of the translation, and to record my many obligations. 

(I.) The text is substantially that of Tischendorf:’ the only deviations 
from it that I have felt compelled to make form the subject of the critical 
notes which are, at intervals, appended to the text. Changes have been 
made in punctuation; but these, generally speaking, have not been such as 
to require special notice. I have here applied the principle of division of 
labor which I venture to advocate. It has always seemed to me that it is at 
least a very hazardous, if not a presumptuous undertkaing, for any man, 
however good a scholar, to construct an original text without eminent qualifi- 
cations for that task. Years of patient labor must have been devoted to 
those studies; an unflagging industry in collecting, and a persistent sagacity 
in sifting evidence, must be united in the biblical critic, or his labors will be 
worse than useless. Those who have not these advantages will do well to 
rely upon others, reserving, however, to themselves (if they are honest men 
and independent thinkers) the task of scrutinizing, testing, and, if need be, 
of expressing dissent from the results arrived at by those whom they follow. 
I have humbly endeavored thus to act with regard to the text of the present 
epistle; where there has seemed reason to depart from Tischendorf (and he 
is fur from infallible), I have done so, and have in all cases acted on fixed 
principles which time, and, above all, failures, have taught me. For a novice 
like myself to obtrude my critical canons on the reader would be only so 
much aimless presumption. I will only say that I can by no means assent to 
a blind adherence to external evidence, especially where the preponderance 
is not marked, and the internal evidence of importance ; still, on the other 
hand, I regard with the greatest jealousy and suspicion any opposition to the 
nearly coincident testimony of the uncial MSS., unless the internal evidence 
be of a most strong and decisive character. I have always endeavored, 
first, to ascertain the exact nature of the diplomatic evidence ; secondly, that 
of what I have termed paradiplomatic arguments (I must apologize for coin- 
ing the word), by which I mean the apparent probabilities of erroneous 
transcription, permutation of letters, itacism, and so forth; thirdly and lastly, 
the internal evidence, whether resting on apparent deviations from the usus 


1Itwas long with me a subject of anxious thought whether I should adopt the text of 
Lachmann (for whose critical abilities I have a profound respect), or that of Tischendorf. _ 
The latter I consider inferior to Lachmann in talent, scholarship, and critical acumen. 
But as a paleographer he stands infinitely higher, asa man of energy and industry he is 
unrivalled, and as a critic he has learnt from what he has suffered. Moreover, he is with 
us, still Jearning, still gathering, still toiling; while Lachmann’s edition, with all its excel- 
lences and all its imperfections, must now remain as he has left it to us. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XIII 


seribendi of the sacred author, or the propensio, be it critica, dogmatica, or 
epexegetica, on the part of the copyist. I have also endeavored to make the 
critical notes as perspicuous as the nature of the subject will permit, by 
grouping the separate classes of authorities, uncial manuscripts (MSS.), cur- 
sive manuscripts (mss.), versions (Vv.), and Fathers (Ff.), Greek and Latin, 
and in some measure familiarizing the uneducated eye to comprehend these 
perplexing, yet deeply interesting particulars. The symbols I have used are 
either those of ‘Tischendorf (to whose cheap and useful edition I refer the 
reader), or else self-explanatory. I cannot leave this part of the subject 
without earnestly advising the younger student to acquire, at least in outline, 
a knowledge of the history and details of sacred criticism, and I can recom- 
mend him no better general instructor than Dr. Davidson, in the second vol- 
ume of his excellent treatise on Biblical criticism. 

(IL.) With regard to the notes, I- would wish first. to remark, that they 
neither are, nor pretend to be, original. I have consulted all the best 
modern, and, I believe, the best ancient authorities, wherever they seemed 
likely to avail me in the line of interpretation I had marked out to myself. 
But as I have endeavored to confine myself principally to critical and gram- 
matical details, numerous authors of high position and merit in other prov- 
inces of interpretation have unavoidably been, though not unconsulted, still 
not generally cited. Hence, though I entertain a deep reverence for the 
exegetical abilities of some of the Latin Fathers, I have never been able to 
place that reliance on their scholarship which I thankfully and admiringly 
recognize in the great Greek commentators. Many of our popular English 
expositors I have been obliged, from the same reasons, to pass over; for to 
quote an author merely to find fault with him, is a process with which I have 
no sympathy. I have studied to make my citations, in malam partem, on a 
fixed principle. In the first place, I hope I have always done it with that 
quick sense of my own weakness, imperfection, and errors, that is the strong- 
est incentive to charitable judgments, and with that gentleness which befits a 
commentator on one whose affections were among the warmest and deepest 
that ever dwelt in mortal breast. In the second place, I have, I trust, rarely 
done it except where the contrast seemed more distinctly to show out what I 
conceived the true interpretation ; where, in fact, the shadow was needed. to 
enhance the light. Thirdly, I have sometimes felt that the allegiance I owe 
to Divine Truth, and the profound reverence I entertain for the very letter 
of Scripture, has required me to raise my voice, feeble as it is, against mis- 
chievous interpretations and rash criticism. The more pleasant duty of 
quoting in bonam partem has also been regulated by a system; first and fore- 
most, of endeavoring to give every man his due; secondly, of supporting 
myself by the judgments and wisdom of others. I have, however, in no case 
sought to construct those catenz of names, which it seems now the fashion 


XIV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


of commentators? to link together in assent or dissent; for whenever I have 
examined one in detail, I have invariably found that the authors, thus hud- 
dled together, often introduced such countervailing statements as made their 
collective opinion anything but unanimous. This easy display of erudition, 
and of error, cannot be too much reprobated. 

The portions upon which I have most dwelt are the particles, the cases, the 
prepositions, and, as far as I have been able, the compound verbs; but on 
this latter subject I have keenly felt the want of help, and have abundantly 
regretted that Winer never has completed the work he projected. If in the 
discussions on the particles I may have seemed wearisome or hypercritical, let 
me crave the reader’s indulgence, and remind him of the excessive difficul- 
ties that have ever been felt and acknowledged in the connection of thought 
in St. Paul’s Epistles. I hope no one will think my pains have here been 
misplaced. That my notes have visibly overlaid my text will, I fear, be urged 
against me. This I could have avoided by a more crowded page, or by dis- 
uniting the text and the notes ; but I prefer bearing the charge to perplexing 
the reader’s eye with close typography, or distracting his attention by refer- 
ences to an isolated text. The notes have been pared down, in some cases, 
to the very verge of obscurity; but in so difficult an epistle, after all possible 
curtailing, they must still be in disproportion to the text. 

(IIL) The last portion I have to notice is the translation. This it seemed 
desirable to append as a brief but comprehensive summary of the interpre- 
tations advanced in the notes. The profound respect I entertain for our own, 
noble version would have prevented me, as it did Hammond, from attempting 
any performance of this nature, if I had not seen that a few corrections, 
made on a fixed principle, would enable the Authorized Version adequately 
to reflect the most advanced state of modern scholarship. The Authorized 
Version has this incalculable advantage, that it is a truly literal translation, 
—the only form of translation that can properly and reverently be adopted 
in the case of the holy Scriptures. Of the two other forms of translation, 
the idiomatic and the paraphrastic, I fully agree with Mr. Kennedy (Preface 
to Transl. of Demosth.) in the opinion that the former is most suitable for the 
general run of classical authors; while the latter may possibly be useful in 
some philosophical or political treatises, where the matter, rather than the 
manner, is the subject of study. But in the holy Scriptures every peculiar 
expression, even at the risk of losing an idiomatic turn, must be retained. 
Many words, especially the prepositions, have a positive dogmatical and theo- 
logical significance, and to qualify them by a popular turn or dilute them by 
a paraphrase, is dangerous in the extreme. It is here that the excellence of 
our Authorized Version is so notably conspicuous; while it is studiedly close 


1I regret to find that Professor Eadie, in his learned and laborious commentary on the 
Ephesians, has adopted this method; in some cases, e. g. p. 15, his authorities occupy five 
full lines of the commentary. 





PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XV 


and literal, it also, for the most part, preserves the idiom of our language in 
‘the most happy and successful way. It has many of the merits of an idio- 
matic translation, and none of the demerits of what are popularly called literal 
translations, though they commonly only deserve the name of un-English 
metaphrases. A paraphrastic translation, such as that adopted by Messrs. 
Conybeare and Howson, I cannot but regard as in many ways unfitted for 
holy Scripture. I have, then, adopted the Authorized Version, and have 
only permitted myself to depart from it where it appeared to be incorrect, in- 
exact, insufficient, or obscure, whether from accident or (as is alleged) from 
design. The citations I have appended from eight other versions will, per- 
haps, prove interesting, and will show the general reader what a “ concordia 
discors” prevails among all the older English Versions,’ and how closely and 
how faithfully the contributors to the Authorized Version adhered to their in- 
structions to consult certain of the older translations, and not to depart from 
the Standard Version which had last preceded them except distinctly neces- 
sitated. Thus the Authorized Version is the accumuiation, as well as the last 
and most perfect form of the theological learning of fully two hundred and 
thirty years. From such a translation, he must be a bold and confident man 
who would depart far, without the greatest caution and circumspection. 

(IV.) Finally, I feel myself bound to specify a few of the commentators 
to whom I am more specially indebted. 

Of the older writers I have paid the most unremitting attention to Chrys- 
ostom and Theodoret: for the former especially, often as a scholar, always 
as an exegete, I entertain the greatest respect and admiration. Of our older 
English commentators, Hammond has been of the greatest service to me; his 
scholarship is, generally speaking, very accurate, and his erudition profound. 
The short commentary of Bishop Fell I have never consulted without profit. 
Bengel’s Gnomon has, of course, never been out of my hands. Of later 
writers I should wish to specify Dr. Peile, from whose commentary I have 
derived many valuable suggestions. I frequently differ from him in the ex- 
planation of véuos without the article; but I have always found him an accu- 
rate scholar, and especially useful for his well-selected citations from Calvin. 
To the late lamented Professor Scholefield’s Hints for a New Translation 
I have always attended. The translation of Conybeare and Howson has 
been of some use; but, as far as my experience goes, it appears the least 
happily executed portion of their valuable work. Dr. Brown’s Expository 
Discourses on the Galatians is a book written in an excellent spirit, of great 
use and value in an exegetical point of view, but not always to be relied upon 
as a orammatical guide. I cannot pass over Dr. Bloomfield, though he has 
not been of so much use to me as I could have wished. ‘To the recent Ger- 


1 I have also consulted Abp. Newcome’s, and all the later versions of any celebrity, even 
the Unitarian, but have derived from them no assistance whatever. 


XVI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


man commentators I am under the greatest obligations, both in grammar and 
exegesis, though not in theology. Meyer more as a grammarian, De Wette 
more as an exegete, command the highest attention and respect; to the for- 
mer especially, though a little too Atticistic in his prejudices, my fullest ac- 
knowledgments are due. The commentaries of Winer and Schott are both 
excellent ; to the latter, Meyer seems to have been greatly indebted. Usteri 
has generally caught most happily the spirit of his author; his scholarship is 
not profound, but his exegesis is very good. Riickert, more voluminous and 
more laborious, has always repaid the trouble of perusal. The two works in 
the best theological spirit are those of Olshausen and Windischmann : the 
latter, though a Romanist, and by no means uninfluenced by decided preju- 
dices, always writes in a reverent spirit, and is commonly remarkable for his 
good sense, and not unfrequently his candor. Baumgarten-Crusius I have 
found of very little value. Hilgenfeld is very useful in historical questions, 
but has a bad tone in exegesis, and follows Meyer too closely to be of much 
use as an independent grammatical expositor. 

These are not more than one-third of the expositors I have consulted, but 
are those which, for my own satisfaction, and the guidance of younger stu- 
dents, I should wish to specify. 

I have now only to commit this first part of my work, with all its imperfec- 
tions, faults, and errors, to the charitable judgment of the reader. I have 
written it, alone and unassisted, with only a country clergyman’s scanty 
supply of books, in a neighborhood remote from large libraries and literary 
institutions; and though I have done my uttermost to overcome these great 
disadvantages, I can myself see and feel with deep regret how often I have 
failed. I commend myself, then, not only to the kind judgment, but I will 
also venture to add, the kind assistance of my readers; for I shall receive 
and acknowledge with great thankfulness any rectifications of errors or any 
suggestions that may be addressed to me at the subjoined direction. 

I will conclude with earnest prayer to Almighty God, in the name of his 
ever-blessed Son, that He may so bless this poor and feeble effort to disclose 
the outward significance, the jots and tittles of His word, that He may make 
it a humble instrument of awakening in the hearts of others the desire to look 
deeper into the inward meaning, to mark, to read, and to understand, and 
with a lowly and reverent spirit to ponder over the hidden mysteries, the 
deep warnings, and the exhaustless consolations of the Book of Life. 

To Him be all honor, all glory, and all praise. 


C. J. ELLICOTT. 


GLASTON, UPPINGHAM, SEPTEMBER, 1854. 


PREFACE 


fee eer OL OCOND EDITION, 





THE present edition is but little different from the first in the results 
arrived at, and in the statement of the principles on which those results 
mainly rest; but, in the details and construction of many of the notes, it will 
be found to involve changes both of diction and arrangement. 

These changes have been found to be wholly unavoidable. The first edition 
was not only written with a scanty supply of books, and with a very limited 
knowledge of the contents of the Ancient Versions, but was constructed on 
principles which, though since found to be sound and trustworthy, do not 
appear in some cases to have been applied with sufficient ease and siimplicity, 
or to have received a sufficiently extended range of application. It is use- 
less to disguise the fact, that what at first professed to be only purely critical 
and purely grammatical, has by degress become also exegetical; and has so 
far intruded into what is dogmatical, as to give systematic references to the 
leading treatises upon the points or subjects under discussion. The ex- 
tremely kind reception that the different portions of this series have met 
with, has led in two ways to these gradual alterations. On the one hand, 
the not unnatural desire to make each portion more worthy of the approval 
that had been extended towards its predecessor, has been silently carrying 
me onward into widening fields of labor; on the other hand, the friendly 
criticisms that I have received from time to time have led me to retrench 
what has seemed unedifying, to dwell with somemhat less technicality of lan- 
guage on the peculiarities of grammar and construction, and yet at the same 
time to enter more fully upon all that has seemed to bring out the connection 
of thought and sequence of argument. 

The latter portions of my work have been based on these somewhat 
remodelled principles, and—if I may trust the opinions of, perhaps, too 
partial and friendly judges —so far successfully, that I shall apparently be 
wise to keep them as the sort of standard to which, if God mercifully grant 
me life and strength, former portions of the series (wherever they may seem 
to need it) may be brought up, and future portions conformed. 


- 


XVIII PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


The present edition, then, is an effort to make my earliest and decidedly 
most incomplete work as much as possible resemble those which apparently 
have some greater measures of maturity and completeness. It has involved, 
and I do not seek to disguise it, very great labor — labor, perhaps, not 
very much less than writing a new commentary. For though the notes 
remain substantially what they were before, and though I have found no 
reason to retract former opinions, except in about four or five debatable 
and contested passages,! I have still found that the interpolation of new 
matter, and the introduction of exegetical comments have obliged me, in 
many cases, to alter the arrangement of the whole note, and occasionally 
even to face the weary and irksome task of total re-writing, and reconstruc- 
tion. I rejoice, however, now at length to feel that the reader of the later 
portions of this series will find no very appreciable difference when he turns 
back to this edition of the first portion. He will now no longer be without 
those invaluable guides, the Ancient Versions; he will, I trust, find but few 
links missing in the continuous illustration of the arrangement, scarcely any 
omission of a comment on important differences of reading, and on points 
of doctrinal difficulty no serious want of references to the best treatises and 
sermons of our great English divines. At the same time he will find the 
‘mode of interpretation and tenor of grammatical discussions precisely the 
same. Though the details may be often differently grouped, the principles 
are left wholly unchanged; and this, not from any undue predilection for 
former opinions, but simply from having found, by somewhat severe testing 
and trial, that they do appear to be sound and consistent. 

For a notice of details, it will be now sufficient to refer to the prefaces to 
earlier portions of this series, more especially to those prefixed to the third, 
fourth, and fifth volumes, in which the different component elements of the 
notes above alluded to will be found noticed and illustrated at some length. 
This only may be added, that particular care has been taken to adjust the 
various references, especially to such authorities of frequent occurrence as 
Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, to the paging of the latest edition.’ 
Where, from inability to obtain access to the last edition of works previously 


1 These changes of opinion will be found noticed in their different places. I believe the 
only passages are chap. ii. 6, TpovavédevTo; iii. 4, emdSere ; iii. 19 (in part), iv. 17, éexAeioat; 
vi. 17 (slightly), Baord(w. 

21 have also retained the references to the translation of Neander’s Planting, as published 
by Mr. Bohn, and of Miiller’s Doctrine of Sin, as published by Messrs. Clark, simply be- 
cause the presence of these volumes in two justly popular series makes it probable that 
many readers may have these works, who have not, and, perhaps, may not be in the habit 
of consulting the originals. The translation of the latter of these works has, I believe, 
been somewhat severely criticized. I fear I am unable to defend it; but, as the allusions to 
Miiller in my notes relate more to general principles than to individual passages, I do not 
think the general reader will suffer much from the inaccuracies or harshness of the transla- 
tion. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XIX 


quoted, this has not been done, the reader will commonly find some allusion 
to the continued use of the authority in its earlier form.! 

I may also remark that, in deference to the wishes of some of my critics, I 
have prefixed to the Epistle a few sentences of introduction, giving a sum- 
mary account of the results of recent historical criticism. This portion of 
sacred literature has been so fully treated, both by Dr. Davidson and Dean 
Alford, and has farther received so much valuable illustration from the 
excellent Life of Saint Paul by Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, that I feel 
it now unnecessary to do more than to group together a few remarks for the 
benefit, not of the critical scholar, but of the general student, to whom -these 
brief notices sometimes prove acceptable and suggestive. 

I must not conclude without expressing my hearty sense of the value of 
several commentaries that have appeared since the publication of my first 
edition. I desire particularly to specify those of my friends, Dean Alford, 
and Mr. Bagge, and the thoughtful commentary of my kind correspondent, 
Dr. Turner, of New York. Of the great value of the first of these it is 
unnecessary for me to speak; my present notes will show how carefully I 
have considered the interpretations advanced in that excellent work, and 
how much I rejoice to observe that the results at which we arrive are not 
marked by many differences of opinion. The edition of Mr. Bagge will be 
found very useful in critical details, in the careful and trustworthy references 
which it supplies to the older standard works of lexicography, and in what 
may be termed phraseological annotations. The third of these works differs 
so much from the present in its plan and general construction, as to make 
the points of contact between us so much fewer than I could wish; but I 
may venture to express the opinion, that the reader who finds himself more 
interested in general interpretation than in scholastic detail, will rarely 
consult the explanatory notes without profit and instruction. The recent 
edition of Professor Jowett has not been overlooked; but after the careful 
and minute examination of his Commentary on the Thessalonians, which I 
made last year, I have been reluctantly forced into the opinion that our 
systems of interpretation are so radically different, as to make a systematic 
reference to the works of this clever writer not so necessary as might have 
been the case if our views on momentous subjects had been more accordant 
and harmonious. 

Before I draw these remarks to a elose, I must not fail gratefully to return 
my heartfelt thanks for the numerous kind and important suggestions 
which I have received from private friends and from public criticism. By 


1 In the note on épdsomodovotr (chap. ii. 14), I have still been unable to verify the refer- 
ences to Theodorus Studita. The best edition, I believe, is that of Sirmond, and this I have 
used, as well as one or two others, but without effect. I should be glad if some reader, 
experienced in Bibliography, could direct me to the edition probably referred to. 


XxX PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


this aid I have been enabled to correct whatever has seemed doubtful or 
erroneous; and to these friendly comments the more perfect form in which 
this commentary now appears before the student is, in many respects, justly 
due. From my readers, and those who are interested in these works, I fear 
I must now claim some indulgence as to the future rate of my progress. 
While I may presume to offer to them the humble assurance that, while life 
and health are spared to me, the onward course of these volumes will not be 
suspended, I must not suppress the fact, that the duties to which it has now 
pleased God to call me are such as must necessarily cause the appearance of 
future commentaries to take place at somewhat longer intervals. ‘Those who 
are acquainted with studies of this nature, will, I feel sure, agree with me, 
that it is impossible to hurry such works; nay, more, I am convinced that all 
sober thinkers will concur in the opinion, that there is no one thing for which 
a writer will have hereafter to answer before the dread tribunal of God with 
more terrible strictness, than for having attempted to explain the everlasting 
Words of Life with haste and precipitation. When we consider only the 
errors and failures that mark every stage in our most deliberate and most 
matured progress, even in merely secular subjects, we may well pause before 
we presume to hurry through the sanctuary of God, with the dust and tur- 
moil of worldly, self-seeking, and irreverent speed. 

May the great Father of Lights look down with mercy on this effort to 
illustrate His word, and overrule it to His glory, His honor, and His praise. 


CAMBRIDGE, 28TH JANUARY, 1859. 


INTRODUCTION. 





THis animated, argumentative, and highly characteristic Epistle would 
appear to have been written by St. Paul not very long after his journey 
through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 23), and as the taxéws (ch. i. 6) 
seems to suggest (but comp. notes, and see contra, Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, 
Vol. 11. p. 164, ed. 2), towards the commencement of the lengthened abode 
at Ephesus (Autumn 54 or 55 to Pentecost 57 or 58; comp. Acts xix. 10, xx. 
31, 1 Cor. xvi. 8), forming apparently the first of that series of Epistles (Gal., 
1 Cor., 2 Cor., Rom.) which intervenes between the Epp. to the Thessalonians 
and the four Epp. of the first captivity (Col., Eph., Philem., Phil.). It was 
addressed to the churches of the province of Galatia (ch. i. 2), — a province of 
which the inhabitants could not only boast a Gallic origin, but also appear to 
have retained some of the peculiarities of the Gallic character; see notes on 
ch. i. 6, iii. 1. The Epistle was not improbably encyclical in its character 
(see Olshaus. on ch. i. 2, and notes on ch. vi. 17), and was called forth by 
the somewhat rapid lapse of the Galatians into the errors of Judaism, which 
were now being disseminated by unprincipled and self-seeking teachers 
(comp. ch. vi. 12, 13) with a dangerous and perhaps malignant activity. 
Against these errors the Apostle had already solemnly protested (ch. i. 9), 
but, as this Epistle shows, with at present so little abiding effect, that the 
Judaizing teachers in Galatia, possibly recruited with fresh emissaries from 
Jerusalem, were now not only spreading dangerous error, but assailing the 
very apostolic authority of him who had founded these churches (comp. ch, 
iv. 13), and who loved them so well (ch. iv. 19, 20). 

In accordance with this the Epistle naturally divides itself into two contro- 
versial portions, and a concluding portion which is more directly hortatory 
and practical. The jirst portion (ch. i. ii.) the Apostle devotes to a defence 
of his office, and especially to a proof of his divine calling and of his inde- 
pendence of all human authority (ch. i. 11—ii. 10), — nay, his very opposi- 


XXII INTRODUCTION. 


tion to it in the person of St. Peter, when that Apostle had acted with incon- 
sistency (ch. ii. 11—21). In the second, or what may be called the polemical 
portion (ch. iil. iv.), the Apostle, both by argument (ch. iii. 1, sq.), appeal 
(ch. iv. 12—20), and illustration (ch. iv. 1—7, 21—30), establishes the truth 
of the fundamental positions that justification is by faith, and not by the 
deeds of the law (ch. iii. 5, 6), and that they alone who are of faith are the 
inheritors of the promise, and the true children of Abraham; comp. notes on 
ch. ili. 29. The third portion (ch. v. vi.) is devoted to hortatory warning (ch. 
iv. 31—-v. 6), illustrations of what constitutes a real fulfilment of the law (ch. 
v. 13—26), practical instructions (ch. vi. 1—10), and a vivid recapitulation 
(ch. vi. 11—16). 

The genuineness and authenticity are supported by distinct external testi- 
mony (Irenzeus, Her. 111. 7. 2, Tertull. de Prescr. § 6; see Lardner, Credi- 
bility, Vol. 11. p. 163 sq., Davidson, Introduction, Vol. 11. p. 318 sq.), and, as 
we might infer from the strikingly characteristic style of the Epistle, have 
never been doubted by any reputable critic; comp. Meyer Einleit. p. 8. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 





CUAL TER. L: 4, 


Apostolic address and sal- 
utation, concluding with a 
doxology. 


AYAOZX 


ouvoe 


1. Ardatodos| ‘an Apostle,’ in the 
higher and more especial meaning of the 
word ; and as such (particularly when en- 
hanced by the succeeding clause), a forci- 
ble protest against the Judaists, who prob- 
ably refused to apply it in this particular 
sense to any out of the significant number 
of the ‘l'welve; comp. Hilgenf Ga/ater- 
brief, p. 107. It may be observed (comp. 
Maurice, Unity of N. T. p. 402) that the 
question involved more than mere per- 
sonal slander (rhy yeyervnuévyy diaBoarhy, 
Theod.): in asserting the preéminence 
of the Twelve over St. Paul, they were 
practically denying Christ’s perpetual 
rule over His church. With regard to 
the meaning of amdorodos in St. Paul’s 
Epp., we may remark that in a few in- 
stances (e. g. 2 Cor. viii. 23, and most 
probably Phil. ii. 25, see notes in Joc.), 
it appears to be used in its simple etymo- 
logical sense. In 2 Cor. xi. 13, 1 Thess. 
ii. 6, the meaning may be thought doubt- 
ful; but in Rom. xvi. 7, oftwés ciow 
émionuot év tois amoo,éXos (commonly 
cited in this sense, Conyb. and Hows. S¢. 
Paul, Vol. 1. p. 463), the correct trans- 
lation appears certainly that of Fritzsche, 


ov 


> / > > >] , 
ATOOTONOS, OUVK aTr avS pwoTrav 
avSpwtrov, ardrka dia “Incod 


‘ quippe qui in Apostolorum collegio bene 
audiant :’ compare Winer, RWB. s, v. 
Apostel, Vol. 1. p. 69, note 2. ‘The va- 
rious applications of this word in eccles. 
writers are noticed by Suicer, Thesaur. 
s. v. Vol. 1. p. 475 sq., Hamm. on Rom. 
xvi. 7. ovK am’ &dvaspérmwv 
ovdé 81’ dvSpadrov| ‘not from men 
nor by man,’ ‘not from men as an ultimate, 
nor through man as a mediate authority,’ 
—the prep. ad here correctly denoting 
the causa remotior (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 
331, Bernhardy, Syntax, v. 12, p. 222), 
did, the causa medians ; see Winer, § 50. 
6, p. 372, Green, Gr. p. 299. *Azd is thus 
not ‘ for id,’ Brown én doe. (comp. Riick., 
Olsh.), as the use of ad for i7d, especially 
after passives, though found apparently 
in some few instances in earlier writers 
(Poppo, Thucyd. 1. 17, Vol. 1. p. 158), 
occasionally in later (Bernhardy, Syn. v. 
12, p. 224), and frequently in Byzantine 
Greek, does not appear in St. Paul’s 
Epistles, nor in any decisive instance in 
the N. T.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 
332, note. In all cases the distinction be- 
tween the prepp. seems sufficiently clear : 
md points to an action which results from 


aoc : ¢ e 
oo” 3 © eo eq 8 53. 6 
Go ele eo FW @ 8 6 5 
a pe ac © Of e — » 

= * 6 eo § 


© 
® ed 
e 
+ 


sane 
* 
seat 
o 
eene 


« 


°° A LATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 1. 


a an n ey > 
Xpictod Kal Oeod matpos Tod éyeipavTos avTov ex vexpav, 


a more immediate and active, amd to a 
less immediate and more passive cause ; 
comp. Herm. Soph. Elect. 65, and see 
Rom. xiii. 1 (Lachm., Tisch.), where St. 
Paul’s correct use of these prepp. may be 
contrasted with that of Chrysost. i Joc. 
There are, indeed, few points more char- 
acteristic of the Apostle’s style than his 
varied but accurate use of prepp. esp. of 
two or more in the same or in imme- 
diately contiguous clauses (¢. g. eis... 
ém{, Rom. iii. 22; e ... 5.3. Eis, 
xi. 36; em)... du... ev, Eph. iv. 
6; &... da... eis, Col. i. 16), for 
the purpose of more precise definition or 
limitation ; comp. Winer, Gr. , ¢., p. 372. 
52°? avIpdmov] ‘through man,’ ov 
avSpdére xpnoduevos brovpye, Theod., — 
not with any studied force in the singu- 
lar as pointing to any particular individ- 
ual (Mosheim, Red. ante Constant. p. 70), 
nor yet for solemnity’s sake, as more ex- 
clusive (Alf.), but simply as thus forming 
a more natural] antithesis to the following 
51a "Inco Xpiorov. kal @cod 
watpos|‘and God the Father ;’ in no- 
ticeably close union with "Ino. Xp., both 
being under the vinculum of the single 
preposition dé; comp. verse 3. We 
might here not unnaturally have expect- 
ed kal 4d @cod marpds, as forming a 
more exact antithesis to what precedes, 
and as also obviating a ref. of d:a to the 
causa principalis (Gal. i. 15); comp., 
however, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 47. i. p 339, and the list in Fritz. on 
Rom. i. 5, Vol, 1. 15, — but exclude from 
it 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. In the present case 
the use of 6:& seems due partly to a brev- 
ity of expression, which is obviously both 
natural and admissible where it is not 
necessary to draw strict lines between 
agency, origin, and medium (comp. Rom. 
xi. 34, and even Plato, Sympos. p. 186 £, 
5: Tov Seov kvBepvara), and partly to an 
instinctive association of the two Persons 


of the blessed Trinity in his choice and 
calling as an Apostle. To urge this as 
a direct evidence for the éuoovcia of the 
Father and the Son (Chrys., Theod.) may 
perhaps be rightly deemed precarious ; 
yet still there 7s something very notice- 
able in this use of a common preposition 
with both the first and second Per- 
sons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumu- 
lative, and yet for the most part so ex- 
act, in his use of prepositions as St. Paul. 
@e0d tatpéds | ‘God the Father ;’ not 
in the ordinary inclusive reference to all 
men (De W., Alf.), nor with more par- 
ticular reference to Christians, scil. ‘our 
Father’ (Ust. al.), but, as the associated 
clause seems rather to suggest, with spe- 
cial and exclusive reference to the pre- 
ceding subject, our Lord Jesus Christ; 


> 
so, perhaps too expressly, Syr. acias| 
= 4 


[patrem ejus]; comp. Pearson, Creed, 
Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 42, (ed. Burt.), 

Tod éyelpavtos Kk. T. A.| *who 
raised Him from the dead,’ ‘The addi- 
tion of this designation has been very 
differently explained. While there may 
probably be a remote reference to the fact 
that it is upon the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ that our faith rests (1 Cor. xv. 17; 
comp. Usteri, Paul. Lehrbegr. 1.1. I, p, 
97, 98), and from it all gifts of grace de- 
rived (Alf.), the context seems clearly to 
suggest that the more immediate refer- 
ence is to the fact that the A postle’s call 
was received from Christ in His exalted 
and glorified position (1 Cor. ix. 1, 1 Cor. 
xv. 8); ‘verax etiam novissimus Apos- 
tolus qui per Jesum Christum totum jam 
Deum post resurrectionem ejus missus 
est,’ August. in loc.; see Brown, Gala- 
tians, p. 22. The article with vexpay 
appears regularly omitted in this and 
similar phrases, except Eph. v. 14, and 
(with amd) Matth. xiv. 2, xxviii. 7, al. ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 112. 


Cuapr. IL 2—4. 


GALATIANS. 


25 


\ / a A 
* Kal ot adv euol tavtes adeAdol, Tals exkrnoiats THs Tararias. 
rn \ / na n rn 
® vapus viv Kat eipnvn do Oeovd tratpos kal Kupiov jyav Inood 
an lal / an na na eo 
Xpictod, * rod dovtos éavtov twepl TOv dwapTidv Huav, draws 


2. wdvres]| Emphatic: ‘ ceteros qui 
secum erant omnes commotos adversus 
eos ostendit,’ Ps. Ambr. St. Paul fre- 
quently adds to his own name that of 
one or more of his companions, e. g. Sos- 
thenes, (1 Cor. i. 1), Timothy, (2 Cor. i. 
1, Phii. i. 1, Col. i. 1), Silvanus and 
Timothy, (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1): 
here, however, to add weight to his ad- 
monitions, and to show the unanimity 
(Chrysost.) that was felt on the subject 
of the Epistle, he adopts the inclusive 
term mdytes G5eAgoi, defining it more 
closely by of ody éuof (Phil. iv. 21),— 
‘all the brethren who are my present 
companions in my travels and my preach- 
ing.” There is, then, no necessity for re- 
stricting adeAdol to ‘official brethren’ 
(Brown, comp. Beza), nor for extending 
oi civ éuol to the whole Christian com- 
munity of the place from which the 
Epistle was written (Erasm., Jowett): in 
this latter case we should certainly have 
expected ‘ with whom I am,’ rather than 
‘who are with me;’ see Usteri én loc. 
Tats éxkAnolats THS Tad. | ‘to the 
churches of Galatia ;’ plural, and with a 
comprehensive reference, (mavtaxod yap 
eipfev 7 vdcos, Theod., comp. Chrys.), 
the epistle probably being an encyclical 
letter addressed to the different churches 
(of Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and other 
places) throughout the province. The 
omission of the usual titles of honor or 
affection seems undoubtedly intentional 
(Chrys.), for in the only other Epistles 
where the simple rH éxxAnciq is used, 
(1 Cor. i. 2, 2 Cor. i, 1, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 
Thess. i. 1), there is in the two former 
passages the important and qualifying 
addition rod @cod, and in the two latter 
év Oc@ Tarpl kK. 7. 2. 

3.xdpis butv kat eiphyn| ‘Grace 

4 


to you and peace:’ not merely a union 
of two ordinary forms of Jewish saluta- 
tion (Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. 1. p. 23), or 
of the Greek xalpew, and the Hebrew 
Jo cits, but a greeting of full spiritual 
significance; xdpis, as Olsh. observes, 
being the divine love manifesting itself to 
man, eiphvn the state that results from a 
reception of it. The Oriental and Occi- 
dental forms of salutation are thus blend- 
ed and spiritualized in the Christian 
greeting; see notes on Eph. i. 2, and 
comp. Koch on 1 Thessal. p. 60. 
kal Kuvplov x.7.A.] ‘and ( from) our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, 
Christ is the mediating imparter of grace, 
God the direct giver; but just as in verse 
1, 5:a was applied both to the Father and 
the Son, so here, in this customary salu- 
tation see on Phil. i. 4), awd is applied 
both to the Son and the Father. Ols- 
hausen (on Rom. i. 7) justly remarks 
that nothing speaks more decisively for 
the divinity of our Lord than these jux- 
tapositions with the Father, which per- 
vade the whole language of Scripture. 
4. rov SdvTos EavTdy| ‘who gave 
Himself, scil. to death; more fully ex- 
pressed 1 Tim. ii. 6, 6 d0bs Eavtby ayTidv- 
tpov, comp. Tit. ii, 14. The participial 
clause serves at the very outset to specify 
the active principle of the error of the 
Galatians. The doctrine of the atoning 
death of Jesus Christ, and a recurrence to 
the laws of Moses, were essentially incom- 
patible with each other. 
T&Y &mapT. huady| ‘for our sins,’ 
scil. to atone for them, Rom. iii. 25, Gal. 
iii, 13. The reading émép (Rec ) has but 
little external support, and is, perhaps, 
due to dogmatival correction, or to that 
interchange of wep) and sép (Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 1. p. 28) of which the MSS. of the 


> 
Tepe 


26 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 4, 


es e a > nm lal an fa) \ ‘\ I 
efeAnTat Nuds ex TOD EverTHTOS ai@vos TrovNnpod KaTa TO DEAnpa 


N. T. present so many traces, Strictly 
speaking, d7ép, in its ethical sense, retains 
some trace of its local meaning, ‘ bending 
over to protect’ (udxeoda: brép rivos ; 
Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 480), and thus points 
more immediately to the action, than to 
the object or circumstance from which 
the action is supposed to spring. ‘The 
latter relation is more correctly defined 
by wepi, —e. 9. poBetoSau wepi tiwos ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 47, e, p. 334, Scheefer. De- 
mosth. Vol. 1. p. 189, 190. Tlep? will thus 
be more naturally used with the thing, 
‘sins,’ drép with the person, ‘sinners ;’ 
and this, with a few exceptions (e. g. 
1 Cor. xv. 3, Heb. v. 3), appears the 
usage of the N. T.; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18, 
where both forms occur. Still it must 
be admitted that both in the N. T., and 
even in classical Greek (Buttm., Ind. ad 
Mid. p. 188) the distinction between 
these two prepp. is often scarcely appre- 
ciable; see notes on Eph. vi. 19, and on 
Phil. i. 7. Saws €FérAnrar] 
‘in order that he might deliver us ;’ not 
‘eximeret,’ Beza, but ‘eriperet,’ Vulg., — 
the verb éEa:petoSa: (only herein St Paul’s 
Epp.) deriving from the context the idea 
of rescuing (Sivauv onuatver Tod puoope- 
vov, Theod. Mops ) as from danger, etc. ; 
comp. Acts xii, 11, xxiii. 27, and appy. 
xxvi. 17, and see Elsner. Ods. Vol. 11. p. 
170. On the force of érws in the N. T, 
and its probable distinction from fva, see 
notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. 
“évert@tos k.T.A.| ‘out of the pres- 
ent evil world ;’ not exactly é« tay mpd- 
fewv Tay movnpdv, Chrysost., still less rod 
mapovTos Biov, Theod., but simply, — ‘ the 
present evil state of things,’ see notes on 
Eph. i. 21, where the meaning of aidy is 
briefly discussed. It is doubtful whether 
6 éveotws aidy is (a) simply equivalent to 
6 viv aidy (2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit. ii. 12, see 
notes), and therefore in opposition to 6 
aidv 6 wéAAwy (comp. Clem, Cor. 1. 6, 


éx TOD 


Zotw St odTos 5 aidy Kat 6 pédAAwy dbo 
éxSpoi), or whether (2) it denotes in a 
more restricted sense ‘the commencing 
age,’ the age of faithlessness and the de- 
veloping powers of Antichrist that had 
already begun; see Meyer in foc. The 
participle éveoras will appy. admit either 
meaning (comp. Rom, viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii, 
22, with 2 Thess. ii. 2, and see exx, in 
Rost u. Palm, Lez., s. v. Vol. t. p. 929, 
Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.); the order 
of the words, however, —not rod ov. 
aig@vos Tov éveor., — and the general and 
undogmatical character of the passage 
seem decidedly in favor of (a): so dis- 


o °o o, 0 
tinetly Syr. Lic. tsa [hoe szeculo}, 


Vulg., Clarom., ‘presenti szculo,’ and 
sim. the best of the remaining Vv. In 
either case the influence of the article 
appears to extend only to éverr.; aiavos 
movnpod forming an explanatory apposi- 
tion, in effect equivalent to a tertiary 
predication (Donalds. Gr. § 489), ‘an 
evil age as it is,’ and pointing out either 
(a) more generally, or (5) more specifi- 
cally, the corrupting influences of the 
world and its works: see esp. Donalds. 
Journal of Sacr. and Class. Philol. No. 
IL, p. 223. The reading aid@vos rod 
éveot., adopted by Lachm., has but weak 
external support ;|AB; 39; Orig. (3), 
Did. al.|, and is internally suspicious as 
a grammatical correction. 

@eov cal ratpds jnuadr] ‘God and 
our Father,’ * Dei et patris nostri,” Vulg., 
— not ‘ God, even our Facher’ (Brown), 
kal being only the simple copula; see 
Middleton, Greek Art, p. 292, 367 (ed. 
Rose), and comp. notes on 1 Thess, iii. 
11. The august title 6 @cds nal rarhp 
occurs several ¢imes in the N. T, both 
alone (1 Cor, xv. 24, Col. iii. 17, James 
i, 27), and with a dependent genitive, 
viz. (a) rod Kuplov judy "I. X., Rom. xv. 
6, Eph. i, 3, 2 Cor. i, 3, xi, 31, Col. i. 3, 





Cuap. I. 5, 6. 


a a \ \ e a 
tov Ocod Kal Tratpos nuar, 
aiovev: aun. 
I marvel at your speedy 
lapse to another gospel, 


5 


GALATIANS. 27 


+c ¢ f > \ a an 
@ » dda eis Tois ai@vas Tov 


° Oavpafo ote obtws tayéws petatiSecSe 


which if an angel were to preach, let him be anathema. It is not man but God whom I strive to please. 


1 Pet. i. 3, and (4) quay only, as here, 
Phil. iv. 20, 1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 11, 13, and 
2 Thess. ii. 16. Whether in these latter 
formule the gen. depends on both, or 
only on the latter of the two nouns, 
cannot be positively decided. No gram- 
matical arguments based on the absence 
of the article are here applicable, as rarhp 
is anarthrous according to rule (Middl. 
Gr. Art. ur. 4, § 2, Winer, Gr. § 19, 4, 
p. 116) ; nor will the most careful inves- 
tigation of the separate passages afford 
any sure grounds for deciding on ezxeget- 
ical principles; contr. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
mm. p. 234. This, however, may be said, 
that as the term zarhp conveys necessa- 
‘ily a relative idea, which in theological 
language admits of many applications 
(see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. m. p. 629 
sq.), while @ebs conveys only one abso- 
lute idea, it would not seem improbable 
that the connection of thought in the 
mind of the inspired writer might lead 
him in some passages to add a defining 
gen. to tarp which he did not intend 
necessarily to be referred to @eds. The 
Greek commentators, whose opinion on 
such a point would be of great value, 
do not appear to be unanimous: Theod. 
Mops. iz loc. and Theodoret, on Rom. 
xvi. 6, refer the gen. to the last nom. ; 
Chrys. on Eph. i. 3, leaves it doubtful; 
see notes on Eph. i. 3. 

5. » 36a] ‘the glory,’ scil. efm not 
Zotw; see on Eph. i 2. Im this and 
similar forms of doxology, — excepting 
that of the angels, Luke ii. 14, and of 
the multitude. Luke xix. 38, — ddéa reg- 
ularly takes the article when used alone, 
e.g. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. iii. 21, 
Phil. iv. 20, 2 Tim. iv 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 
2 Pet. iii. 18. When joined with one or 
more substantives it appears sometimes 


with the art. (1 Pet. iv. 11, Rev. i. 6, 
vii. 12), sometimes without it (Rom. ii. 
10, 1 Tim. i. 17, Jude 25). It is thus 
difficult to determine whether we have 
here (a) the ‘rhetorical’ form of the arti- 
cle (Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 22, p. 315), 
‘the glory which especially and alone 
belongs to God’ (comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 
1, p. 97), or (6) whether ddéa takes the 
article as an abstract noun (Middl. Gr. 
Art.v.1). On the whole, (a) seems the 
most natural, and best suited to the con- 
text. ai@vas TOY aia@vwr!) 
‘the ages of the ages,’ ‘secula sexculo- 


rum,’ Vulg., less precisely Syr. Sed 
4 @2 


ese {seeculum seculorum]; a 
= g 


semi-Hebraistic expression for a duration 
of time superlatively (infinitely) long ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 36. 2, p. 220. The 
same words occur, Phil. iv. 20, 1 Tim. i. 
17, 2 Tim. iv. 18, and frequently in the 
Apocalypse. Occasionally we meet with 
the singular aidy tév aidvev (Eph. iii. 21, 
comp. Dan. vii. 18), and the perhaps 
more distinctly Hebraistic aidy roi aidvos, 
Heb. i. 8 (quotation), Psalm exi. 10,— 
but with scarcely any appreciable differ- 
ence of meaning; see notes on Eph. iii. 
21. Vorst. (de Hebraismis N. T., p. 325) 
investigates both this and the similar ex- 
pression yeveds -yeveav; but his remarks 
must be received with caution, as on the 
subject of Hebraisms he cannot now be 
considered a safe guide. 

6. Savud¢w] ‘I marvel ;’ ‘mani- 
festatis beneficiis, mirari se dicit quod 
ab Illo potuerint separari,’ Ps. Jerome. 
The idea of wondering at something 
blameworthy is frequently implied in this 
word: see Rost u. Palm. Lez. s. v., and 
compare Mark vi. 6, Jobn vii. 21, 1 John 
iii, 13. The further idea which Chrys. 


28 


GALATIANS. 


Crap. I. 6. 


a An a ? ef b] I 
amo Tov KarécavTos buds év ydpiTt Xpiotod eis ETEPOV EvaryyedLor, 


finds in the address, od udvoy évrpérwy 
«22. Gmod 5& Kal Seuxvds otay exer ep) 
abtay imdvoway, Ott meydAny Twa Kal éo- 
Tovdacuéevnv, — does not seem intended. 
ottTws Taxéws]| ‘so quickly. After 
what? In our ignorance of the exact 
time when the Galatians were converted, 
as well as the circumstances of their de- 
fection, this question cannot be satisfacto- 
rily answered. Of the proposed answers, 
—(qa) their conversion, Mey., Alf.; (0) 
the Apostle’s last visit, Beng., Flatt; or 
(c) the entry of the false teachers, Chrys., 
Theoph., — the first appears the least, 
and the last the most probable, as the 
following verse seems to show who the 
Apostle had in his thoughts. At any 
rate the reference of the adverb seems 
decidedly rather to time than manner 
(2 Thess. ii. 2, 1 Tim. v. 22, compare 
Conyb. and Hows. in Joe.), however that 
time be defined. Still all historical de- 
ductions from such a passage (Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 285, Davids. Introduct. Vol. 
11. p. 297) must obviously be debatable 
and precarious. Grotius appositely 
cites, in illustration of the levity of the 
Gallic character, Ceesar, Bell. Gall. iv. 5, 
‘sunt (Galli) in consiliis capiendis mobi- 
les, et novis plerumque rebus student ;’ 
comp. 7b. 1. 1, ut. 10, 19: see Elsner, 
Observ. Sacr. Vol. 11. p. 172. 

metatiserse] ‘are going over from, 
are falling away from :’ present (ob elie 
perédeade, GAA, weTaTiSecde, Chrys., — 
the defection was still going on), and 
middle, not passive, as Theod. Mops. 
(uetdyeode, &s eri abixwv; comp. Heb. 
vii. 12), Vulg., Clarom., al. While in 
earlier writers werariSeua: is used both 
with and without an accusative (yvéunyv), 
in the sense of ‘changing an opinion’ 
(see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), it 
is as frequently used in later writers in 
the sense ‘ descisco,’ with prepp. eis, apés, 
ém) of the party, etc., to whom —e. g. 


* 


Polyb. mr. 118, 8, nerariterSa: mpds rods 
Kapxndoviovs — and éx, amd (or a simple 
gen., Diod. Sic. xvi. 31), of the party, 
etc., from whom the defection has taken 
place; so Appian, Bell, Mithr. 41, amd 
"ApxeAdou mpds BvAAay petaTigeodar : 
comp. 2 Mace. vii. 24, and see further 
exx. in Kypke, Ods. Vol. 1. p. 273, and 
in Wetst. in Joe, Tov Kadré- 
cavtos] ‘Him who called you,’ scil. 
God the Father (Chrys., Theod.), to 
whom the calling of Christians appears 
regularly ascribed by St. Paul (verse 15, 
Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, 25, 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 
15, 17, 1 Thess. ii. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 14, 
2 Tim. i. 9),— not ‘Christ who called 
you,’ Syr., Jerome, al., the correct theo- 
logical distinction being, 4 wév KAjjots éore 
tod Tlatpés, THs 5& KAhoews 7 aitia, Tod 
Yiod, Chrys.: comp. Rom. v. 15. Brown 
(p. 39), excepts Rom. i. 7, but scarcely 
with sufficient reason ; see Fritz. and De 
W. in doe, and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 
Iv. 15, Vol. 1. p. 144, Usteri, LeArd. 11. 
2, 3, p. 269, 279 sq. The passages cited 
by Alford on Rom. J. ¢., viz. John v. 25, 
1 Tim. i. 12, do not seem fully in point. 
év xdpiti] ‘by the grace of Christ ;’ 
holy instrument of the divine calling, 
the prep. év-being here used in its instru- 
mental sense (Eph. ii. 13, vi. 14, al.), 
and marking not so much the element in 
which, as the principle by which (imma- 
nent instrumentality, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, 
comp. notes on Eph. ii. 13) the calling 
was vouchsafed unto mankind; see notes 
on 1 Thess. iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 48. a, p. 347. De Wette and Meyer 
both adduce 1 Cor. vii. 15, év 8& eiphyn 
KéxAnkev Huds 6 Oeds, but not pertinently, 
as both there and in the two other pas- 
sages in which rcaadciy is joined with év, 
viz., Eph. iv. 4, 1 Thess. iv. 7 (see notes 
in loc.), the prep. retains its simple and 
primary force ‘of permanence in,’ and 
marks, as it. were, the element in which 


Cuap. I. 7. = 


GALATIANS. 


29 


A > 4 »”- > / cal 
" 0 ovK ExTW AXXO, Eb pH TWés Eiow of TapdocorTes buds Kal 


we are called to move. In the present 
case, however, the dogmatical considera- 
tion, that the Grace of Christ, in the 
sense it here appears used by St. Paul, 
denotes an active and. energizing influ- 
ence rather than a passive element, seems 
distinctly to suggest the instrumental 
sense; comp. Rom. vy. 15, and see Meyer 
and Hilgenf. in h. 7. The usual 
explanation, according to which éy is 
used ‘in sensu pregnanti’ for eis (* vo- 
cavit in gratiam,’ Vulg., Auth.), is more 
than doubtful, as caAéw implies no idea 
of motion (comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 4. a, 
p- 367), while that of Wieseler ( Chronol. 
p- 285, note), according to which év xdp. 
= xdpw (ch. iii. 19), is alike inconsistent 
with the usage of éy, and the regular 
meaning of yds Xpic Tod. 
érepoyv| ‘another sort of, Fell. If we 
compare the very similar passage, 2 Cor. 
xi. 4, in which érepos and &AAos occur in 
juxtaposition, and apparently in senses 
exactly identical with those in the present 
passage, it will not seem necessary to lay 
any stress on €repoy as implying either 
(a) ‘bad,’ ‘perverted’ (comp. Plato, 
Phileb. 13 A, Erepov bvoya, Pind. Pyth. 
mr. 34 [60] daluwy Erepos; see Rost u. 
Palm. Lex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1202, Wetst. 
on 1 Tim. v. 25), or even (bd) ‘strange,’ 
Scholef. Hints, p. 88 (ed. 3), comp. Jude 
7,— as both here and 2 Cor. @. c. érepos 
appears only to refer to distinction of 
kind, tddos of individuality ; ‘ €repos non 
tantum alium sed diversum significat,’ 
Tittm. Synon. p. 155 ; comp. Plato, Sym- 
pos, 186 B, Erepdvy re kal avduoov. It 
must be admitted, however, that this 
distinction is not always kept up in the 
N. T.; see Matth. xi. 3, 1 Cor. xv. 39. 
7. 8 ovK Eativ BAAO €f wh K.T.A.] 
‘which is Not another, save that,’ etc. 
The various interpretations of these words 
turn mainly on the antecedent assigned 
to 8; this may be (a) the whole sentence, 


S71 — edaryyéAtov, ‘ quod quidem (scil. vos 
deficere a Christo) non est aliud nisi,’ 
Winer; (5) the preceding edayyériov, 
‘which Gospel is, admits of being, no 
other,’ De W. (compare Syr., Chrys., 
Theod.), and appy. the majority of ex- 
positors; (c) the preceding compound 
expression €repoy evayyéAtov, Meyer, Alf. 
Of these (c) is clearly to be preferred, as 
best preserving the natural and gram- 
matical sequence of the words, and the 
distinction between érepos and &Ados. 
To prevent the words érepoy ebayyéAtov 
being misconstrued into the admission 
that there could really be any other gospel 
than the one preached to them, St. Paul 
more fully explains himself, using &AAos 
rather than the ambiguous érepos, and 
throwing the emphasis on ov«: ‘ which 
(€repov evayyéAwov) is not another (a 
second) GospPrL, except (only in this 
sense, that) there are some who trouble 
you,’ z e., the Judaists bring you another 
gospel, but it is really no Gospet at all; 
comp. Hamm. and Meyer in Wwe. Ina 
word, as Hilgenf. correctly observes, the 
seeming paradox lies in this fact, that 
evayyéAwor is understood after &Ao in its 
strictest meaning, but expressed after 
€repov in one more lax. ei ph] 
‘save that.’ The gloss ef wy—= aAAd& can 
be distinctly impugned in even what 
seem the strongest passages, e. g. Matth. 
xii. 4 (see Fritz. in loc.), 1 Cor. vii. 17 
(see Meyer in Joc ): consult Klotz, Devar, 
Vol. 1m. p. 524, Hartung, Partik. uh, 3. 
6, Vol. 1. p. 120, compared with Dindorf 
in Steph. Thes. Vol. ut. p. 190. The 
first distinct evidences of this interchange 
appear only in very late writers, 

oi tapdaoaorvtes] ‘who are troubling 
you ;’ ‘qui vos conturbant,’ Vulg. The 
definite article might at first sight seem 
inconsistent with the indef. tives: when 
thus used, however, it scrves to particu- 
larize, and in the present case specifies, 


30 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 8. 


a a * \ x 
Sérovtes petactpéwat TO evayyédvov Tod Xpictov. * adda Kat 
2\ e va) xX w+ 2 b a > / ae >A > 
€av 7)uEls 7) ayyenos €€ ovpavod evayyeniCnTar vpiy Tap 0 euNnyye- 


the rwés as those whose characteristic 
was troubling the Galatians, ‘some who 
are your troublers;’ comp. Luke xviii. 
9, Twas Tos memousdtas, Col. ii 8, wh 
Tis twas tora 6 cvAwywyav. Winer (Gr. 
§ 18. 3, p. 100) adduces some exx. from 
classical Greek, and compares the com- 
mon expression eiow of Aéyortes: see also 
Bernhardy, Synt, vi. 23, p. 318. We 
cannot, therefore, with Riickert definitely 
pronounce this as an instance of Asiatic 
Hellenism. The article must, of course, 
be carried on to SéAovres; see Kiihner’s 
valuable note on Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 20. 

To evayyéAlov Tod Xptotod| It 
is doubtful whether Xpiorod is the gen. 
subjecti, ‘the Gospel preached by Christ,’ 
or the gen. objecti, ‘the Gospel of or con- 
cerning Christ.’ From the fuller expres- 
sion, Rom. i. 3, ebayyéA. Tod Oeod trepl 
Tov viov avtod, we may, perhaps, here 
decide on the latter interpretation: see 
Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 160. According 
to Meyer (on Mark i. 1), when the gen. 
after ciayyéA. IS cwrnplas, BaotAclas, T.A. 
it is gen. objecti; when cod, gen. sub- 
Jjecti ; but when Xpicrtod, gen. objecti or 
subjecti, to be determined only by the 
context. 

8. kal édv] ‘even tf;’ not, however, 
necessarily ‘supposing a case which has 
never occurred’ (Alf.), but, as usual, 
conveying the idea of condition with the 
assumption of objective possibility; see 
Herm. de Partic. tv, 2.7, p. 95, and esp. 
the very clear distinctions of Schmalfeld, 
Synt. d. Gr. Verb, § 93, 94. It may be 
further observed that, as the order shows, 
«at belongs not to jes or to the sentence, 
but to édy (etiam si), to which it gives 
force and prominence; see Herm. Viger, 
No. 307, Hartung, Partic. raf, 3. 3, Vol. 
1. p. 141, and notes on Phil. ii. 17. 


pets] we.” Though jyets here seems 


to refer mainly to St. Paul, and is fre- 
quently so used elsewhere, yet, as of ody 
éuol m. aed. may very reasonably be here 
included (Mey.), it does not seem desira- 
ble, with De W., Conyb., and others, to 
limit the term specially to the Apostle. 
The use of fuets, or of the simple plural, 
must always depend on the context; 
comp. notes on 1 Thess, i. 2, 

map’ 8] ‘contrary to that which.’ The 
meaning of the prep. has been the subject 
of considerable controversy ; the Luther- 
ans having urged the meaning preter- 
quam (Vulg., and appy. Chrys.), the 
Romanists that of contra (Theod., al.). 
This latter meaning is perfectly correct 
(opp. to Brown, p. 45; see Donalds. Gr. 
§ 485, and exx. in Winer, Gr. § 49. g, 
p. 360, esp. Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 18, where 
mapa tovs véuovs and Kard 7. y. are in 
antithesis), and is appy. required by the 
context and tenor of the argument. The 
Apostle implies throughout the Epistle 
that the Judaical gospel was in the strict 
sense of the words an €repoy edayy., and 
in its very essence opposed to the true 
Gospel. avdSepa | ‘accursed ;’ 
strictly considered, nothing more than 
the Hellenistic form of the Attic avdSn- 
pa, Moeris (cited by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
249), the original meaning of both forms 
being 7d ddrepwuévoy Ges, Theodoret on 
Rom. ix. 38. The prevailing use, how- 
ever, of avdSeua in malam partem com- 
pared with the command, Lev. xvii. 29, 
seems (esp. in the LXX and the N. T.) 
to have gradually led to a distinction in 
meaning; dvdSnua being used in the 
sense of donurium (2 Macc. ix. 16, Luke 
xxi. 25), dvdSeua (Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xii. 
3, xvi. 22) as ‘aliquid divine tre sacra- 
Hesych. dvddeua+ emuardparos, 
axowdrntos. avddnuas xéounua. This 
distinction, though very generally, is still 


tum ;’ 


Cnap. I. 9. 


, an 
McapeSa wpiv, avadSena Eato. 


GALATIANS. 


31 


° @s mpoeipjKaper, Kal apts 


/ / v a 
wad Eyw, el TIS Upas evayyediCeTar Tap’ d TapedaBeTe, dva- 


not universally observed: see Theod. and 
esp. Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3, who, even 
while he asserts two distinct meanings, 
seems to regard the forms as interchange- 
able. In the eccles, writers (see Sui- 
cer, Thes, Vol. 1. p. 268, Bingham, xvr. 
2), avddeua, like the Hebrew t-n (see 
Winer, RWB, Art. Bann) was applied 
to excommunication ; though even here, 
it may be observed, accompanied some- 
times with distinct execration ; see Bing- 
ham, 7b. 2.17. This milder sense has 
been frequently maintained in the present 
passage (Hammond in Joc., Waterland, 
Doct. Trin, ch. 4, Vol. 11. p. 458), but is 
distinctly opposed to the usage of the N. 
T.; compare ém«ardparos, ch. iii. 10, 
xatdpa, ch. iii. 13. For further reff. see 
the good note of Fritz. Rom. ix. 3, Vol. 
Il. p. 253 sq. 

9. tpvetphuaperv) ‘we have said 
before.’ ‘To what does mpd here refer? 
Is it (a) solely to the preceding verse, as 
Chrys., ‘lheod., Jerome (comp. Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 214, Bohn), or (5) to 
a declaration made at the Apostle’s last 
visit, as Syr. (appy.), and recently, Ust., 
De W., Mey., al.? Grammatical consid- 
erations do not contribute to a decision: 
for neither, on the one hand, can the use 
of the perfect rather than the aor. zpoel- 
mouev (ch. v. 21, 1 Thess. iv. 6) be pressed 
in favor of (a),— etpnxa at most only 
marking the continuing validity of what 
was said (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, and Winer, 
Gr. § 40. 4, p. 243), — nor, on the other 
hand, can the reference to what has just 
been said be urged as inconsistent with 
the usage of apd (Ust.), for see 2 Mace. 
iii. 7, rpocipnuévev xpnudtwy (where the 
subject referred to is mentioned no furthcr 
back than the beginning of the preced- 
ing versc), 3 Macc. vi. 35, and compare 
2 Cor. vii. 3 with 2 Cor. vi. 12. Con- 


textual reasons, however, viz. the inser- 
tion of &pr: as marking an antithesis to 
what was distinctly past, and the appar- 
ent identity of time marked by the two 
plural verbs edayyed., mpoeip. (Alf), seem 
so distinctly in favor of (5), that in this 
case we do not hesitate to maintain that 
reference even in opposition to the opin- 
ion of the Greek expositors; comp. 2 Cor. 
xiii. 2. This passage has been pressed 
into the controversy relative to the state 
of the Galatian church at the Apostle’s 
second visit; see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 
I. p. 305. kala&pre n.7.A.] 
‘so now I say again:’ undoubtedly a 
consecutive sentence. Riickert and B. 
Crus., by making it part of the antece- 
dent sentence, retain the more Attic 
meaning of &pr:, but suppose an intoler- 
ably harsh ellipsis before ef ris. “Apri is 
not used in Attic Greek for purely present 
time, — comp. Plato, Meno, 89, where éy 
7@ voy is in opp. to év rg &pti, —but is 
not uncommonly so used in later Greek ; 
see esp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18 sq. 

evayyeAlCetar| ‘tf any one 
preacheth ;’ simply and purely conditional 
(‘ef cum indic. nihil significat preeter 
conditionem,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 
455), ‘if, as a matter of fact, preaching 
is a course of action pursued by any one,’ 
be such an assumption reasonable or the 
contrary; see esp. Schmalfeld, Syntaz, 
§ 91, p. 195. This change from the 
more restricted é&y with subj., verse 8, 
appears here intentional; comp. Acts v. 
08, 39. Still such distinctions must not 
be overpressed, as there is abundant evi- 
dence to show that not only in later, but 
even sometimes in earlier writers, they 


> 
Elwes 


were not always carefully observed; see 
Madvig, Gr. § 125. 1. It is certainly 
noticeable that, in Euclid (e. g. Book 1. 
Prop. 4), éay with subj. is nearly always 


32 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 10. 


Yeua éotw. ™ dpte yap avSpwrrous telSw 7) Tov Ocdv; 4 tyra 
avSpatrow apéckew; eb éts aVSpwHTrois Hpecxov, Xpictod Soddos 


> xX ” 
OUK ay HENV. 


used in mathematical hypotheses, where 
there can be no accessory idea, but where 
experience must prove the truth or fal- 
lacy of the supposition: see Winer, Gr. 
§ 41. 2, p. 260, note. This use of eday- 
yeAlCouce with an accus., persone, is an 
drat Aeydu. in St. Paul’s Epp., but oc- 
curs elsewhere both in the N. T. (Luke 
ili. 18, Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 22, xiv. 15, 
21, xvi. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12), and in later 
writers: comp. Winer, Gr. § 32. 1, p.199, 
and Lobeck, Phryn. p. 267 sq. 

10. &prt yap} ‘For now ;’ not con- 
trasting his present conduct and former 
Pharisaism (Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
222 [Bohn], Wieseler, Chronol. p. 178), 
but emphatically repeating the &pr: of 
the preceding verse, and calling especial 
attention to his present words; — ‘Now, 
—when I am using such unhesitating 
language.’ The exact force of yap 
seems more open to question: it may be 
plausibly taken as in abrupt and ironical 
reference to the charges of the Judaists; 
‘well! am I now,’ etc. (on this idio- 
matic use of yds, see esp. Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 1. p. 245), but is perhaps more 
naturally regarded as argumentative, — 
not, however, so much with reff. to the 
seeming harshness of his previous words 
(Mey., Alf.), as to their unquestionable 
truth, the best proof of which lay in his 
being one who was making God his 
friend, and not men; see Olsh. and Hil- 
genf. in loc. wel dw} ‘am I per- 


suading, Mxsts oo [sum persua- 
dens] Syr., ‘suadeo,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; 
scil. ‘am I making friends of ;’ the slight 
modification of meaning, viz. ‘ persua- 
dendo mihi concilio,’ as suggested by the 
latter words of the clause, being easily 
supplied from the context; see Acts xii. 
20, 2 Mace. iv, 45, and comp. wetoa top 


Ocdv (with inf.), Joseph. Antig. rv. 6. 5, 
vi. 5. 6, vit. 10 3. The usual comment, 
that weidw is here used de conatu (Uste, 
al.), is very questionable. Of the pas- 
sages cited in support of this meaning, 
Acts xxviii. 23, certainly proves nothing, 
and Aélian, Var. Hist. 1 6, is not to the 
point, ‘attempt’ being implied not by the 
vezb but its tense. The same obs. seems 
applicable to Xenoph. Hell. y1. 5, 16, 
Polyb. Hist. rv. 64. 2, cited in Steph: 
Thess. 8. v. h OnT@, KT. AL; 
‘or am I seeking to please,’ etc; not 
merely a different (De W.), but a more 
general and comprehensive statement of 
the preceding clause. The student 
will find a sound sermon on this verse 
by Farindon, Serm. xx1. Vol. 1. p. 139 
(ed. 1849). tri dvdp. pec 
nov} ‘were still pleasing men.’ It is not 
necessary either to press the use of the 
imperf. de conatu, or to modify the mean- 
ing of apéoxw, *studeo placere,’-— a mean- 
ing which it never bears; see Fritz. Rom. 
xv. 2, Vol. mr p. 221, note. The apos- 
tle says, ‘I am not pleasing men; and a 
clear proof is, that I am Christ’s servant, 
whose service is incompatible with that 
of man.’ The emphasis thus rests on 
ért (Mey., Brown) which is not merely 
logical (De Wette), but temporal, with 
ref. to the preceding &pru. The Ree. 
inserts yap after ei, with D3EJK; Syr., 
and other Vv.; Ckrys., Theod., al.,— 
but with but little plausibility, as the 
authority for the omission is strong 
f[ABDIFG; 5 mss.; Vulg, Clarom., 
Copt., Arm.; Cyr. (3), Dam.], and the 
probability of interpolation to assist the 
argument, by no means slight. 

% nv} This form of the imperf., so com- 
mon in later writers, is found, Xen. Cyr. 
vi. L. 9, Lysias, mr. 17, but is unequivo- 
cally condemned by the Atticists, Buttm, 


Cuap. I. 11, 12. GALATIANS. 


33 


The Gospel I preach is not 
of man; and I will confirm 
this by stating my mode of 
life before my conversion. 


1 Tvwpifm 5é tpiv, aderdol, To evaryy éXov 
\ 5] Ye ec + ee rn vA > BA \ 
TO evayyedlo sev UT euod, Ott ovK eoTLiV KaTa 
avSpwrrov. ” obdé yap éy® Tapa dvSparrov 


11. 3d¢] Tisch. ydp. The external authorities for 5: are AD?EJK ; many Vy. 
(Aath.-Pol. and others omit entirely); Chrys., Theod., al.; Ambrst. (Rec., Griesb., 
Scholz., Lachm., De W., Mey.). For ydép, BD'FG; 17. al.... Vulg., Cla- 
rom.; Dam, Hier. Aug., al. (Tisch. ; commended by Griesb.). The permu- 
tation of 6 and yap is so common that internal considerations become here of some 
importance. The question is, does St. Paul here seem to desire to carry out further 
his previous remarks, to explain, or to prove them? In the first case we could only 
have, as Riick observes, 5¢; in the second, yap or dé (5¢ retaining a faint oppositive 
force, Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 3); in the third, only ydp. The context seems 


decisively in favor of the first hypoth., and therefore of 8é, 


remarks that it is commonly found when 
in combination with gy; this, however, 
is doubtful; so Lobeck, Phryn. p. 152. 
ll. yuwpi¢w 8é] ‘Now I certify, 
make known unto you;’ commencement 
of what may be termed the apologetic 
portion of the epistle, ch. i. 11—ch, ii. 
21. The present formula, Usteri ob- 
serves, is always used by St. Paul as the 
prelude of a more deliberate and solemn 
avowal of his opinion; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 
1, 2 Cor. viii. 1, 1 Cor. xii. 3 (81d -yv.). 
Aé is consequently here (see crit. note) 
what is termed wetaBarixdv, Bekk. Anecd. 
p. 958 (cited by Hartung, Vol. 1. p. 165), 
t. e., it indicates a transition from what 
has been already said, to the fresh aspects 
of the subject which are now introduced. 
For examples of the very intelligible at- 
traction 7d edayy..... 8rt, see Winer, 
Gr. 66. 6, p. 551, ovK ory 
kata &vSpwrorv| ‘is not after man,’ 
z.é., ‘is of no human strain: ‘xara 
complectitur vim prepositionum dad (?), 
51a, et wapd,’ Bengel. This remark, if un- 
derstood exegetically rather than gram- 
matically, is perfectly correct, Kara 
tivSp., taken per se, implies ‘after the 
fashion, after the manner of man’ ( Winer, 
Gr. § 49. d, p. 358), but in the present 
context amounts to the more comprehen- 
sive declaration that the ebayyéAiov was 


not dvSpémoyv, either in its essence or 
5 


object; ody brd aySpwrlvev obyrerrat 
Aoy:ouav, Theod.: compare Plato, Philed. 
12, 7d & eudy Seds..... ode ort Kata 
&vSp.; where the true qualitative nature 
of the expression is shown by the further 
explanation, AAG wépa Tod peylotou oé6- 
Bov. The different shades of meaning 
under which this formula appcars in St. 
Paul’s Epp. (ch. iii. 15, Rom. iii. 5, 
1 Cor. iii. 3, ix. 8, xv. 32) must be re- 
ferred to the context, not to the preposi- 
tion; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 5, Vol. 1. p. 
159 sq. and comp. Suicer, Thesaur, Vol. 
I. p. 301. 

12. obd3& yap eyo] ‘for neither did 
I receive it, ete. ;’ proof of the preceding 
assertion. The true force of ovdé has 
here been frequently misunderstood, but 
may be properly preserved, if we only 
observe (1) that in all such cases as the 
present (comp. John v. 22, viii. 42, Rom. 
viii. 7), the particle must receive its ea- 
act explanation from the context (‘ad- 
sumpta extrinsecus aliqua sententid,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 707), and (2) 
that ovdé ydp, in negative sentences, 
stands in strict parallelism and bears 
corresponding meanings with kal yap 
in positive sentences; see Hartung, Par- 
tik. ovdé, 2. B. 2, Vol. 1. p. 211, and 
comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. Vol. 1. 
p. 21 sq. We may thus correctly trans- 
late, either (a) nam ne ego quidem, ‘even 


34 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 12. 


TapéraBov avTo ove edivdaySnv, GdrAgw Sv aroKadvYrews *Incod 


I who so naturally might have been 
taught of men,’ Hilgenf., Winer in Joc., 
and Gr. § 55. 6, p. 436; or (b) neque 
enim ego, ‘1 as little as the other Apos- 
tles’ (Olsh.); or perhaps a little more 
inclusively, ‘I (distinctly emphatic) — 
as little as any others, whether XpioroSi- 
Saxro: Or avSpwrodidaxTa.’ Of these 
(5) is to be preferred not only from con- 
textual but even grammatical reasons; 
for independently of seeming too con- 
cessive, (a) would also have been most 
naturally expressed by ov5¢ ey ydp, or 
kal yap ovd éyé (Riick). This last ob- 
jection Meyer considers invalid on ac- 
count of the normal position of ydép, — 
but inexactly ; for though ydp generally 
occupies the 2nd place, yet when the 
Ist and 2nd words are closely united 
(which would here be the case) it occu- 
pies the 3rd: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 261. Tapa avarpaémrov| 
‘from man ;’ not synonymous with amd 
évSpérov, the distinction between these 
prepositions after verbs of receiving, etc. 
(apa more immediate, amd more remote 
source), being appy. regularly main- 
tained in St. Paul’s Epp.: comp. 1 Cor. 
xi. 23, mwapéAaBov ard tod Kuplov, on 
which Winer (de Verb. Comp. Fasc. 11. 
p- 7) rightly observes, ‘non mapa Tov 
Kuplov, propterea quod non ipse Christus 
preesentem docuit ;’ see Schulz, Abendm, 
p. 218 sq. otre €d1daxdnzv] 
‘nor was I taught it ;’ slightly different 
from the preceding mapéAaBov, the é5:5. 
pointing more to subjective appropriation, 
while rapéA. only marks objective recep- 
tion (Windischm.): so appy. Beng., ¢al- 
terum (zapéA.) fit sime labore, alterum 
cum labore discendi.’ On the sequence 
ovdt—otre, see Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, p. 
436, and esp. Hartung, Partik, otre, 
1.9, Vol. 1 p. 201 sq., where this un- 
usual, but (in cases like the present) de- 
fensible collocation is fully explained. In 


all such passages, 5¢ refers to the forego- 
ing words or sentences, so that oi7e is 
used as if od or ox had preceded; 5é, in 
negative sentences, having often much 
of the force and functions which «ai has 
in affirmative sentences; see especially 
Wex. Antig. Vol. 11. p. 157, and comp. 
Klotz. Devar. Vol. 11. p. 711. The read- 
ing ovdé (Rec. and even Lachm.) is only 
supported by ADIFG; a few mss.; 
Eus., Chrys., al., and, as a likely repe- 
tition of the preceding ovd¢, or a correc- 
tion of a supposed solecism, is more than 
doubtful. "Incod Xpicrov] 
‘from Jesus Christ ;’ gen. subject, form- 
ing an antithesis to the preceding mapd 
avSp.; Christ was the source and author 
of it (Fell. Hamm.) : comp. 2 Cor. xii. 
1, and notes on 1 Thess. 1.6. In ex- 
pressions similar to the present (comp. 
ciphyn @co0d, evayy. Tod Xpictod), it is 
only from the context that the nature 
of the gen., whether swbjecti or objecti, 
can be properly determined ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 30 1, p. 168, and comp. notes on 
ver. 7. The peculiar revelation here al- 
luded to may be, as Aquinas supposes, 
one vouchsafed to the Apostle soon after 
his conversion, by which he was fitted to 
become a preacher of the Gospel; comp, 
Eph. iii, 3, where, however, éyvwpicdy 
(Lach., Tisch.) is less decisive than Ree. 
eyvaploe. It is a subject of contin- 
ual discussion whether the teaching of 
St. Paul was the result of one single 
illumination, or of progressive develop- 
ment; comp. Reuss. Théol., Chreét. 1v. 
4, Vol. 1. p. 42, sq. Thiersch, Apost. 
Age, Vol. 1. p. 110 sq. (Transl.) The 
most natural opinion would certainly 
seem to be this; that as, on the one 
hand, we may reverently presume that 
all the fundamental truths of the Gos- 
pel would be fully revealed to St. Paul 
before he commenced preaching; so, on 
the other, it might have been ordained, 


Cuap. L 12—14. 


xX plaTov. 


GALATIANS. 


35 


139 7 \ ae oe eee n 
nkovaate yap THY éunv avactpopyy tote év TO Iov- 


- al ee * ¢ \ 3O/ , a a 
daicud, tt Kay’ bTrepBorHv ediwKov Tiv éxxnolav Tod Ocod kal 


€mropyouv avTny. 


that (in accordance with the laws of our 
spiritual nature) its deepest mysteries 
and profoundest harmonies* should be 
seen and felt through the practical ex- 
periences of his apostolical labors. The 
question is partially entertained by Au- 
gustine, de Gestis Pelag. ch. xtv. (32), 
Vol. x. p. 339 sq. (ed. Migne, Par. 1845). 
13. hrovoate yap] ‘For ye heard;’ 
historical proof, by an appeal to his 
former well known (éxovc. emphatic) 
zeal for Judaism, that it was no hu- 
man influence or human teaching that 
could have changed such a character ; 
ov yap ay, ci we Ocds Hv 6 exxadrdrroy, 
ottws &3péav eoxov petaBodrhv, Chrys. 
Thy &vactpophy Tote, kK. T. Al 
‘my conversation in time past,’ etc. 
Auth. Vers. ‘These words are taken by 
most interpreters as simply equivalent 
to thy mote (mpotépayv) avact. This is 
not critically exact. As Dr. Donald- 
son suggests, the position of ore is 
due to the verb included in dvacrpo- 
giv: as St. Paul would have said ay- 
eotpepduny mote, he allows himself to 
“write rhy éuhv avactpophy mote. Meyer 
aptly cites Plato, Leg. m1. 685 D, 7 Tis 
Tpolas GAwats 7d Sevrepov. 
TG “lovdaicug] ‘the Jews’ religion,’ 
z. e. § Judaism ;’ see 2 Mace. ii. 21, xiv. 
38, 4 Mace. iv. 26. On the specializing 
force of the art. with abstract nouns, see 
Scheuerlein, Syntax. § 26. 2. ¢, p. 219. 
-émdpSour| ‘was destroying it,’ ‘ex- 
pugnabam,’ Vulg., Clarom.: see Acts 
ix. 21, 5 mopShoas év ‘Iepovoaddu Tods 
émixadovpévovs, and-comp. Asch. Sept. 
176. Itis not necessary either to mod- 
ify the megning. of ropSetv with Syr. 


( Damon = eram vastans), Copt. 
(desolabam), and other Vv., or to ex- 
plain the imperf. as de conatu (oBéou 


\ / nan? - a 
Kat TpoexoTTov év TS Lovdaicpue t7rép tron- 


émexelper, Chrys.), with the Greek com- 
mentators, As Meyer justly observes, 
St. Paul previous to his conversion was 
actually engaged in the work of destruc- 
tion: he was not a Verwiister merely, or 
a Verstérer, but a Zerstérer : comp. Acts 
xxii. 4, €dlwta &xpe Savdrov. The im- 
perfects accurately denote the course of 
the Apostle’s conduct, which commenced 
and continued during the time of his 
Judaism, but, owing to his conversion, 
was never carried out; contrast édiwta, 
Acts, 7. ec. 1 Cor. xv. 9, and see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 3, p. 372 sq., where the 
three principal uses of the imperf. (sim- 
ultaneity, duration, and non-completion) 
are perspicuously stated, and comp. the 
more elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, 
Synt. § 55, pp. 97—111. 


14. cvyvnAtkietas]| * contempora- 
vies.’ Svuvnd. is an Grak Aeydu. in the 
N. T., and is only found occasionally in 
a few later writers, e. g. Diod. Sic. 1. 53, 
Dion. Halic. x. 49; see Wetst. in loc. 
and the exx. collected by Dindorf and 
Hase in Steph. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. vit. p- 
1378. The compound form (compare 
ovuueroxos, Eph. iii. 6, v. 73 cvyroww- 
yés, 1 Cor. ix. 23) is condemned by the 
Atticists; Attic writers using only the 
simple form; see Thomas Mag. p. 268 
(ed Bern.), Herodian, p. 433 (ed Koch.) 
meptacot. (nawths brdpx. | being 
from the first more exceedingly a zealot 
or contender; modal participial clause 
serving to define more particularly the 
peculiar nature of the advance which 
St. Paul made in Judaism. The com- 
parison wepioo. is obviously with those 
just mentioned, the modo) aura. ev TH 
ryévet pov. TOY TATPLK@V Lov 
wapadédcew v| ‘for the traditions of 
my fathers ;’ gen. oljecti after (nAwrhs, 


GALATIANS. Cuap. I. 15, 16. 


56 


\ , 3 a is , ‘ e , 
Aovs TUYNALKLOTAS EV TO EVEL ov, TEPLTGOTEPwS CywTNS UTApPYov 
TOV TATPLKOY Lov TAapAacoTEwH, 


T will confirm this by a re- 
cital of the places where I 
abode, and the countries in 
which I travelled. The 
churches of Judea knew 
of me only by report. 


"Ore d€ evdoxnoev 6 Oeos, 0 adopicas pe 
4 \ , \ a 
éx KolMas pnTpos pou Kal Kadécas Oia THs 
/ b) a 16 > 4 \ fN > fal 
NApLTOS avTOV, aTokaduat TOV VOY avTOD 


15. é Ses! —ADEJK; mss.; many Vv., but Syr. (Philox.) with ast.; Orig. (1) 
Chrys. (1), Theod. (3), al.; Iren. (1), Aug., al. (Rec., Grzesb., but om. om , Scholz, 
[Lachm.| Mey.). Tisch. omits these words with BFG ; some mss.; Boern., Vulg., 
Syr.; Orig. (2), Chrys. (1), Theodoret (2), Iren. (1), Orig. (interp ), Faust. ap. 
Aug., Ambrst., Hier., al. (De W., approved by Muti, Prolegom. p. 47). The acci- 
dental omission, however, seems probable on paradiplomatic considerations (see 


Pref. p. xvi), @ having O immediately before, and soon after it. 


— object about which the ¢jA0s was dis- 
played; comp. Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3, 
1 Cor. xiv. 12, Tit. ii. 14. The inser- 
tion of mov qualifies the more general 
term ratpixds, making it equivalent to 
the more special watporapd5oros, and 
thus certainly seeming here to limit the 
mapadécers to the special ancestral tradi- 
tions of the sect to which the Apostle 
belonged (Meyer), %. ¢., to Pharisaical 
traditions ; comp, Acts xxiii. 6, bapicaios, 
vids bapicalwy, and more expressly Acts 
XX. 3, Kath thy axpiBeotdryny aiperw 
Tijs nueTépas Spyoxelas ECnoa bapicaios. 
15. bre 5& edddn. we. rT. AL] * But 
when it pleased God ;’ notice of the time 
subsequent to his conversion, in which the 
Apostle might have been thought to have 
conferred with men, but did not. On 
the meaning of evdoxnéw, — here marking 
the free, unconditioned, and gracious will 
of God, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 8, and 
on its four constructions in the N. T., 
notes on Col. i. 19. éx kotAtas 
pntpdés pov| ‘from my mother’s womb,’ 
é.e. ‘from the moment I was born,’ — 
not as Calv., ‘nondum genitum,’ Jer. i. 
5; é« being temporal both here and 
Matth. xix. 12, Luke i. 15, Acts iii 2, 
xiv. 8, and marking the point from 
which the temporal series is reckoned: 
see Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 328. 
The verb &popioas, as Jowett observes, 


has two meanings, the first physical 
(Z&th,-Pol.), the second and predomi- 
nant one, ethical and spiritual (‘ segre- 
gavit,’ Vulg., Clarom.); comp. Rom. 
its kal Kardéoas KT. A.| 
‘and called me by means of His grace ;’ 
scil. at the Apostle’s conversion (Acts ix. 
3 sq.),—not with any reference to a 
calling, undefined in time, which de- 
pended on the counsels of God, as Riick - 
ert in doc. : compare Rom, viii. 30, where 
the temporal connection between mpod- 
pioe and éxddAece (on the force of the 
aorists see Fritz. im foc.) is exactly simi- 
lar to that between d&qopicas and Karécas 
in the present passage. The xAjors in 
both cases has a distinct origin in time; 
a’téy [Ocdy] apn kal mpd aidvwy mpoeyrw- 
Kévat Kal meTa TadTa KEKAnKéeva Kad’ dv 
katpodyv édoxiuace, Theod.; comp. Us- 
teri, Lehrd. 11. 2. 2, p. 269. dia 
THS Xap. adtod| ‘by means of His 
grace:’ grace was the ‘causa medians’ 
of the Apostle’s call; wavraxoi rijs xdp- 
ttos elval ono Td way Kal Tis piravSpw- 
tias avtTov tis apdrov, Chrys, The 
moving cause of the call was the Divine 
evdoxla, the mediating cause, the bound- 
less grace of God, the instrument, the 
heaven-sent voice; comp, Winer, Gr. 
§ 47, p. 337. 

16. drmoxardwat] ‘to reveal ;’ de- 
pendent on the preceding evddxnoer, not 


Crap. I. 16. 


GALATIANS. 97 


> > fn HL. > 4 \ an 
€v €“ol, Wa evayyedifwopat avTov ev Tois ESveow, ebSéws od ™poo- 


on the particles (Est.),— a connection 
that would involve the unexampled con- 
struction (in the N. T.) ed8dé«.—<tva 
evayy., and would impair the force of 
iva. év éuol] ‘within me ;’ not 
‘per me,’ Grot., ‘in my case,’ Green, or 
‘coram me,’ Peile, but simply ‘in me,’ 
Vulg., 7. e. ‘in my soul; Xpictdy eZxev 
év éavt@ Aadobyta, Chrys. It may be 
admitted, that, owing partly to linguis- 
tic (see on 1 Thess. ii. 16), and partly to 
dogmatical reasons (Winer, Gr. § 47. 2. 
obs., p. 322), there is some difficulty in 
satisfactorily adjusting all St. Paul’s 
varied uses of the preposition éy; still, 
wherever the primary meaning gives a 
sense which cannot be objected to dog- 
matically or exegetically, we are bound 
to abide by it. Here this meaning is 
especially pertinent. Both subjectively, 
by deep inward revelations, as well as 
oljectively, by outward manifestations, 
was the great apostle prepared for the 
work of the ministry; see Chrysost. in 
loc. On the arbitrary meanings as- 
signed to év in the N. T., see Winer, 
Gr. § 48. a, p. 348. evayyea- 
i¢wmacr| Present: the action was still 
going on. evSéws ov Tpoo- 
avedéuny] ‘straightway I addressed,’ 
ete.; the ev%éws standing prominently 
forward and implying that he not only 
avoided conference with men, but did 
so from the very first; ode elrev ar- 
A@s, ‘ov mpocavedséuny, GAr’ ‘ ciSéws, 
x. t. A.’ Chrys. According to the com- 
mon explanation, evSéws is to be con- 
nected in sense with dr7ASov, though in 
immediate structure with mpocaveSéunv ; 
* Apostolus, — quee fuit ejus alacritas, 
interponit negativam sententiam que 
ipse in mentem venit,’ Winer, comp. 
Jowett, and Alf. It seems more correct 
to say that evSéws belongs to the whole 
sentence, from ov mpocay. to ’ApaBiav, 


which, by means of the antithesis be- 
tween its component negative and af- 
firmative clauses, in fact expresses one 
single thought; ‘immediately I avoided 
all conference and intercourse with man ;’ 
comp. Meyer in Joc. ov Tpog-' 
aveduny| ‘I addressed no communi- 
cation to ;’ not exactly ‘non acquievi,' 
Vulg., Clarom., nor quite so much as 


Das {j [mon revelavi] Syr., but 
= g 


more simply, od« dvexowwodunv, Theod., 
‘I made no communication to, and held 
no counsel with,’ ‘non contuli,’ Beza. 
The.prep. apds does not imply that the 
Apostle ‘ did not in addition to that con- 
fer,’ (comp. Ust), but, as not uncom- 
monly in composition, simply indicates 
direction towards : compare zmpocavari- 


Serva tots udvtect (Diod. Sic. xvu. 


116) with mpocavapépew ois pdvrect 
(ib. ib.), in which latter verb the idca 
of direction is made more apparent; see 
Fritz., Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 204. 

gcapKl nal atpare | ‘flesh and blood ;’ 
a Hebrew circumlocution for man, — 
generally with the accessory idea of 
weakness or frailty ; see Tlammond and 
Lightfoot on Matt. xvi. 17. The ex- 
pression occurs four times in the N. T., 
apparently under the following modifi- 
cations of meaning: (a) Man, in his 
mere corporeal nature, 1 Cor. xv. 50, 
Heb. ii. 14; (4) Man in his weak in- 
tellectual nature, contrasted with God, 
Mattt. xvi. 17 (contr. Mey.), comp. 
Chrys. Vol. x. 675 xz, ed. Ben.; (ce) 
Man, in his feeble human powers, con- 
trasted with spiritual natures and agen- 
cies, Eph. vi. 12. The present passage 
seems to belong to (b); the apostle took 
not weak men for his advisers or in- 
structors, but communed. in stillness 
with God. Chrys., in referring the 
words to the Apostics, himself seemed 


38 


rd \ vA 
aveSéunv capki Kal aipuartt, 


GALATIANS. 


7 


Cuap. I. 17. 


ovdé amiprSov ews “Iepocddupa 


Tpos Tovs Tpo eu“od aTroaTéAous GAAA amhASov eis ’ApaBiav, cat 


to feel the application too limited, as he 
adds, ef 5¢ nal wept mdvtwv avdpdrwr 
TOUTS pnoww, ode Hucis avTepodper. 

17. ob 5 &rHASOv]| ‘nor did I go 
away,’ scil. from Damascus, — to which 
place the mention of his conversion 
naturally leads his thoughts. It does 
not here seem necessary to press ov5é 
in translation (‘nor yet did I,’ etc., 
Conyb.), as the context does not seem 
climactic; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3. 
(Transt.) In the present case it has 
appy. only that gwast-conjunctive force 
(see notes ver. 12), by which it appends 
one negation to another,— ‘non apte 
connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu 
accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 
707; see notes on Eph. iv. 27, Winer, 


Gr. § 55. 6, p. 432, and esp. Francke,’ 


de Part. Neg. 11. 2, p. 6. The read- 
ing avjAdov [Rec. with AJK; mss.; 
Copt., Syr.-Philox.; Chrys., Theod.]} 
seems obviously a correction, and is re- 
jected by all the best editors. 

&AAd] The particle has here its usual 
force after a negation, and implies such 
an opposition between the negative and 
affirmative clauses, that the first is, as it 
were, obliterated and absorbed by the 
second; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 11, 
Fritz. Mark, Excurs. 2, p. 773. Schra- 
der is thus perhaps justified in pressing 
the opposition between od mpocay. and 
AAG G&rHaS., aS an evidence that St. 
Paul went into Arabia for seclusion ; 
contr. Anger, Rat. Temp. ch. Iv. p. 123. 
In estimating, however, the force of aAAd 
in negative sentences, caution must al- 
‘ ways be used, as ov —dAAa (not 8) 
is the regular sequence, like ‘nicht — 
sondern’ (not ‘aber’) in German; see 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 201. eis 
"ApaBiav] ‘into Arabia; possibly the 
Arabian desert in the neighborhood of 
Damascus, ’ApaBia being a term of some- 


what vague and comprehensive applica- 
tion; see Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, 
Vol. 1. p. 105, and for the various di- 
visions of Arabia, Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. 
§ 102, Vol. 11. p. 728 sq. This brief, 
but circumstantial, recapitulation of St. 
Paul’s early history is designed to show 
that, in the early period after his conver- 
sion he was never in any place where he 
could have learned anything from the 
other apostles. A discussion of the ob- 
Ject (probably religious meditation), and 
of the duration (probably a large por- 
tion of three years) of this abode in 
Arabia, — both, especially the latter, 
greatly contested points, will be found 
in Schrader, Paulus, Part 1. p. 54 sq., 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 141 sq., Davidson, 
Introd. Vol. 11. p. 75, 80. A a- 
paokdy] ‘Damascus.’ This most an- 
cient city certainly existed as early as 
the days of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 15, xv. 
2), and is supposed, even at that remote 
period, to have had an independent gov- 
ernment (see L. Miiller, Orig. Regnt 
Damasce. in Iken, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 721 
sq.) After being subdued by David 
(2 Sam. viii 5, 6), it revolted under 
Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24), formed the 
seat of a very widely extended govern- 
ment (comp. 1 Kings xx. 1), was recov- 
ered by Jeroboam, the son of Joash (2 
Kings xiv. 28), united in alliance with 
the kingdom of Israel, but was after- 
wards taken by Tiglath Pileser (2 Kings 
xvi. 9). After falling successively un- 
der that of the Babylonian, Persian, and 
Seleucid sway, it passed at last under . 
that of the Romans (Bs. c. 64; see Diod. 
Sic. xxxrx. 30), and at the time of the 
Apostle formed a part of the dependent 
kingdom of Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 382). 
For further notices of the history of this 
ancient city, see Winer, RWB, Vol. 1. 
p. 244 sq., Pauly, Real-Encycl, Vol. 1. 


Cuap. I. 18. 


GALATIANS. 


39 


, e , % f a 
maw uTéeotpeva eis Aapackov. ™ érevta peta ern tpla avir- 
P ¢ , e n lal 
Nov eis ‘Iepocodupa totophoa Knpav, cal éréwewa mpos adbrov 


p- 847 sq., Conyb. and Howson, S¢. 
Paul, Vol. t p. 105. 

18. tm tpla] ‘three years,’ scil. 
after his conversion, that being the ob- 
vious and natural terminus a quo to 
which all the dates in the narrative are 
to be referred; see notes on ch. ii. 1. 
How much of this time was spent in 
Damascus, and how much in Arabia is 
completely uncertain. The only note 
of time in Acts ix. 23, fuépa ixavat, 
which appears to include this stay in 
Arabia, has by recent expositors been 
referred solely to the time of preaching 
at. Damascus, — though appy. with less 
probability; see Anger, Rat. Temp. p. 
122, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 143. 
istopijaa:| ‘to visit, to become ac- 
guainted with;’ scarcely so little as 
‘videre,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., but 
more in the sense of ‘coram cogno- 
scere,,— to visit and make a personal 
acquaintance with. As the meaning 
of this verb has been somewhat con- 
tested, we may remark that it is used 
by later writers with reference to (a) 
places, things, —in the sense of ‘visit- 
ing,’ ‘making a journey to see;’ Plu- 
tarch, Thes. 30, Pomp. 40, Polyb. Hisé. 
m1. 48. 12; comp. Chrysost. dmep of ras 
peydaAas méAes Kal Aaumpas KaTapavdd- 
vovtes Aéyovow: (b) persons—in the 
sense of ‘seeing,’ ‘making the acquaint- 
ance of;’ Joseph. Antig. vu. 2. 5, io- 
Topica *EXedoapov; Bell. vi. 1. 8, dv 
eye iarépnoa; somewhat curiously, in 
reference to the pillar of salt into which 
Lot’s wife was changed, Antig. 1. 22, 
istépnka dt adthy: see, also, Clem. Hom. 
vin. 24 (p. 196, ed. Dressel), isropijoas 
rovs THs Sepawelas émtvyxovdytas, ib. I. 
9, p. 32; x1x. 6, p. 376; and exx, col- 
lected by Hilgenf. Gal. p. 122, note. 
There is thus no lexical necessity for press- 
ing the primary meaning (Hesych. ioro- 


pet, €pwrg) advocated by Bagge in loc. 
The reading [Meérpov (Ree.), instead of 
Kepavy [A B; a few mss.; Syr., Copt., 
Sahid., Syr.-Phil. in marg., Ath., al.], 
is supported by preponderating external 
authority [DEFGJK; mss.; Vulg., 
Clarom., al.; many Ff.], but is rightly 
rejected by most modern editors as a 
probable explanatory gloss. 

éwmépetva mpds avtdy] ‘I tarried 
with him; comp. chap. ii. 5, diapeivy 
mpos suas; Matth. xxvi. 55, mpds suas 
exade(ounv (Lachm.); 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
mpos tuas 5¢ tuxdv mapapeva, ver. 7, 
émimeivat mds suas, al, usually with 
persons; ‘seepe nostri scriptores, ut ip- 
sorum Greecorum poete” passim, mpds 
cum accus., adjecto verbo quietis, sic 
collocant, ut non sit nisi apud, i. q., 
mapa cum dativo,’ Fritz. Mark i. 18, p. 
202. We may compare with this the 
legal forms, mpds Siatnrhy Aaxeiv, De- 
mosth. p. 22.28; 8lxas elva: mpds tods 
&pxovras, ib. 43, 71, etc., where the 
original notion of ‘going to,’ etc., has 
passed into that of mere direction. 

The ém) in éréwewa is not per se ‘ inten- 
sive’ (Alf. on Col. i. 23), but appy. 
denotes rest at a place; see Rost u. 
Palm, Lez. s. v. émf, C. 3, Vol. 1. p. 
1045. The verb itself has two con- 
structions in the N. T., — with a simple 
dative (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. i. 
23, 1 Tim. iv. 16), and with prepp. ext, 
mpés, év (Acts xxviii. 14, Phil. i. 24); 
see notes on Col. i, 23, and Winer, Verb. 
Comp. u. p. 11. huépas Sex- 
améyvre| The reason for this shortness 
of St. Paul’s stay is mentioned, Acts 
ix. 29. The apostle specifies the exact 
time of his stay at Jerusalem, to show 
convincingly how very slight had been 
his opportunities of » receiving instruc- 
tion from St. Peter or any one else 
there. 


40 GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 19, 20. 


4 y ial A , > \ 
nuépas Sexatrévte © Erepov d€ THY ATrocTOAwWY OvK EldoV EL [U1 


*IdxwBov tov aderpov tod Kupiov. 


19. ef wh “Idnew Bor] ‘save James,’ 
7. @., no other ardéaroAov save him. It 
may be fairly said, that every principle 
of grammatical perspicuity requires that, 
after these words, not merely ¢7dov, but 
eldov tov amdatoAov be supplied ; comp. 
1 Cor, i, 14, oddéva tudy éBdwrioa ef wh 
Kpicrov cal Tdiov. This is distinctly ad- 
mitted both by Mey., Hilgenf., and the 
best recent commentators, even though 
they differ in their deductions: so very 
clearly Chrys. St. James, then, was an 
améaroAos (whatever be the meaning as- 
signed to the word), —a fact somewhat 
confirmed by the use of dmroardaous, 
Acts ix. 28. The additional title, 6 
&deApds Tod Kuplov (1rd ceuvorAdynua, as 
Chrys. terms it), was probably added 
(Ust.) to distinguish this James from 
the son of Zebedee, who was then liv- 
ing. Whether it follows from this pas- 
sage, that Jacobus Frater and Jacobus 


Alphei are identical (by no means such — 


a fiction as Meyer somewhat hastily 
terms it), and that James was thus one 
of the Twelve, is a question which falls 
without the scope of this commentary. 
This consideration only may be sug- 
gested ; whether in a passage so circum- 
stantial as the present, where St. Paul's 
whole object is to prove that he was no 
emissary from the Apostles (comp. ver. 
17), the use of &5eA¢ds, in its less proper 
sense (Kupifov aveyids, Theod.), is not 
more plausible than the similar one — 
of &récrodos. The most weighty coun- 
ter-argument is derived from John vii. 5, 
ovde yap of adeAgpo) aitod emiotevoy eis 
aitéy; but it deserves careful consider- 
ation whether ériorevoy really means 
more than a proper, intelligent, and 
rightful belief; see even De Wette on 
John 1, ¢., and comp. John vi. 64, where 
ov miotevew is predicated of some of the 
Hasna, and where ver. 67 implies some 


° & 5é ypddw tyiv, idod évar- 
doubt even of of dédexa. The stu- 
dent who desires to examine this diffi- 
cult question, may profitably consult 
Mill, on the Brethren of our Lord, 
Schneckenburger, on St, James, p. 144, 
sq., Arnaud, Recherches sur l Epitre de 
Jude, and the review of it by Deitlein 
in Reuter, Repert. (Aug. 1851), Ne- 
ander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 351, note 
(Bohn); Blom’s Disputation, (in Vol- 
beding, Thesaur. Comment, Vol. 1.) ; 
Credner, Linleitung, Vol. t. p. 571; 
Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. (Part 1. 1842) ; 
and Hilgenf. Galaterbr. p. 219. The 
most recent monographs are those by 


Schaff, Berlin, 1842; and Goy, Mont. — 


1845. 

20. & 8& ypddw x. 7. A.] ‘but as 
to what I write unto you; not paren- 
thetical, but a strong and reiterated as- 
surance of the little he had received 
from the Apostles, & 5 ypadw iuiy being 
an emphatic anacoluthon ; comp. Wan- 
nowski, Constr. Abs. p. 54 sq., where 
this and similar constructions are fully 
discussed. Sti ov Wevdouar 
‘(I declare) that I lie not ;’ strong con- 
firmatory asseveration of the truth, — 
not of ver. 12 sq. (Winer), but of ver. 
17, 18. In passages marked with this 
sort of abruptness and pathos (see Liicke 
on 1 Joh, iii. 20, p. 245, ed. 2), a verb 
consonant with the context is commonly 
supplied before 671; comp. Acts xiv. 22, 
Accordingly, in the present case, ypdow 


(Mey.), Aéyo (De W.), éord (Riick.), 


duvuue (Ust.), have been proposed as 
suppletory ; the first three are, however, 
obviously too weak, the last too strong 
— évémiov tod @cod not being any more 
than m4n7 5%, a formal oath (Olsh.). 
If any definite word was in the Apostle’s 
thoughts, it was perhaps dS:auapripoua 
(Acts x. 42, with 671); especially as, in 
three out of the five places in which 


Cuap. I. 21—23. 


mov Tov Oeov Ste ov r>revSopar. 


GALATIANS. 


41 


Vv 
| rreita HANOV eis TH KAiwara 


Ths Zuplas Kai ths Kiduias. ™ Hunv && wyvootpevos TO rpocwtrw 
Tals exxAnoiats THs Iovdaias tais ev Xpictd, * povov dé dxovovres 


évem. Tod Ocod occurs, this verb (though 
in slightly different senses and construc- 
tions) is found joined with it; see 1 Tim. 
li. 14, v.21, 2 Tim. iv. 1. On this use 
of 67: in asseverations, see Fritz, Rom. 
ix. 2, Vol. 11. .p. 242. 

21. rad KAtuartal ‘the regions ;’ 
‘regiones,’ Vulg., ‘partes,’ Clarom.; a 
word only used in the N. T. by St. 
Paul, here and Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor. 
xi. 10. The primary meaning, as deri- 
vation indicates, is ‘inclinatio’ or ‘de- 
clivitas,’ ¢. g. kAliuara dp@v, Eustath. p. 
1498. 47 (comp. Polyb. Hist. vir. 6. 1), 
thence with ref. to the inclination of the 
heavens to the poles, ‘a tract of the 
sky,’ kAiua ovpavod, Herodian, x1. 8, 
and lastly, — its most usual meaning, — 
a tract of the earth, whether of greater 
(comp. Athen. xu. p. 523 £) or, as in 
the present case, of more limited ex- 
tent; comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 44. 6, x, 1. 
3. On its accentuation (usually xAtua, 
but more correctly Agua), see Lobeck, 
Paralip, p. 418. The journey here 
mentioned is appy. identical with that 
briefly noticed in Acts ix. 30 ; see Conyb. 
and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 116. 
Zuptas] Not the Jower part of Syria, 
called Phoenice (Winer, Ust, al.), but 
‘Syria proper’ (7 &yw Supia, Strabo), as 
St. Paul's object is to show the distance 
he was from any quarter where he could 
have received instruction from the Apos- 
tles; see Meyer in loc. In Acts xxi. 3, 
Svpia is used merely in a general way to 
denote the Roman province bearing that 
name: on its divisions, see Forbiger, 
Handb. Geogr. Vol. u. p. 640. 

Tis KtAtkias] Occasionally mentioned 

in combination with Supfa (Acts xv. 

23, 41) as geographically conterminous 

(Alf), and as serving to define what 
6 


portion of the larger province is espe- 
cially alluded to. For a general notice 
of this province, see Strabo, Geogr. xtv. 
5, p. 668 sq., Mannert, Geogr. vi. 3, 
p- 32 sq., Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. § 67, 
Vol. 11. p. 271 sq. : 

22. TG tTpocdmw@] ‘in respect of 
personal appearance,’ scil, ‘ by face ;’ ovdé 
amd thews yvadpiyuos hy abrois, Chrys. 
The general limiting nature of the da- 
tive (Scheuerl. Synt. § 20, Donalds. Gr. 
§ 458) may here be fully recognized: 
the Apostle was not unknown to the 
Churches in every sense, but only in 
regard to his outward appearance. This 
particular dative, commonly called the 
dative ‘of reference to,’ must be care- 
fully distinguished both from the in- 
strumental and the modal dat. (1 Cor. 
xi. 5}, and may be best considered as a 
local dative ethically used. Here, for 
instance, the Apostle’s appearance was 
not ‘hat by which, but as it were the 
place in which, their ignorance was 
evinced; see esp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. 
a, p. 179, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 
6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synz. m1. 8, p 84. 
74s ’lovdatas| The Church of Jeru- 
salem is, however, to be excepted, as 
there the Apostle was eioropeuvdpuevos Kal 
éxmopevduevos, mappnoiatduevos ev TE dv- 
duart Tod Kuplov, Acts ix, 28. 
tats év Xpiorg] Not merely a peri- 
phrasis for the adjective ‘the Christian 
churches,’ but ‘the churches which are 
in Christ ;’ t. e., which are incorporated 
with Him who is the Head: comp, Eph, 
i, 22, 23. 

23. dxotovres haoay| ‘they were 
hearing ;’ scil, the members of these 
Churches; see Winer, Gr. § 67. 1, p. 
555, This periphrasis, which probably 
owes its prevalence in the New Testa- 


42 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. I. 23, 24.—II. 1. 


9 ¢ e , € \ A > i ‘ , LA 
Hoav OTL 6 SLWKWY Nuas TroTée vUV evayyeniGeTas THY TicTLW HV 


? , 
OTE eTrOp el 


When I went up to Jeru- 
salem, I communicated 


* nal édd0&alov év éwot Tov Oeov. 
Il. "Evesta dia Sexatecodpwv érav wadw 


my Gospel both in public and private: I resisted the false brethren, and was accredited by the Apostles. 


ment to the similar formula in Aramaic 


serves to express 
(oon sal): p 


the idea of duration more distinctly 
than the simple tense; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 45. 5, p. 311. In the LXX it seems 
principally limited to those cases in 
which the participle is used in the 
original; see Thiersch. de Pent. 1. 11, 
p. 113, Examples are found in Attic 
Greek (see Jelf, Gr. § 375. 4), but com- 
monly under the limitation that the 
participle expresses some property or 
quality inherent in the subject; see 
Stalbaum, Plato, Rep. vr. 492 a. 

ort 6 Stdnwv «. 7. A. ‘our former 
persecutor ;’ the participle being here, 
by means of the art., turned into a 
species of subst., and losing all temporal 
force; see the exx. collected by Winer, 
Gr. § 57, p. 317, and comp. the very 
bold form, rdv éavris Exovra, Plato, 
Phedr. 244, 8, cited by Bernhardy, 
Synt. vi. 22. obs. p. 316. “Ort is 
here not the ‘dz: recititavum’ (Schott), 
—a use of the particle not found in St. 
Paul’s Epp., except -in citations from 
the O. T. (Mey.),— but preserves its 
usual relatival force, the ‘oratio indi- 
recta’ which it introduces, passing after- 
wards into the ‘oratio directa’ in the 
pronoun, This latter assumption Mey. 
deems unnecessary, as St. Paul might 
call himself, being now a Christian, 
‘our former persecutor.’ This, however, 
seems forced and artificial. THY 
wiarsy| ‘the faith,’ objectively repre- 
sented as a rule of life (De W.); comp. 
ch. iii, 23, 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 1, al. In 
the Eccles. writers wioris is frequently 
used in the more distinctly objective 
sense, ‘the Christian doctrine,’ ‘ doc- 
trina jidem postulans’ (e. g., Ignat. 


Eph. § 16, miotiw Ocod év nanh SidacKa- 
AlG PSelpn; Concil. Laod. can. 46, ric- 
Tw éxuavedvew; see Suicer, Thes. s. v. 
miotis, 2. a), but it seems very doubtful 
whether this sense ever occurs in the 
N.T. In Acts vi. 7, iraxotew rH mlo- 
Tet seems certainly very similar to é7a- 
kovety TG evayyeAlw, Rom. x. 16 (see 
Fritz. Vol. 1. 17), but even there ‘the 
faith,’ as the inward and outward rule 
of life (see Meyer in loc.), yields a very 
satisfactory meaning. On the various 
uses Of aiotis, see Usteri, Lehrd. u. 1. 
2, p- 91 sq. 

24. év éuo lt] ‘in me,’ not ‘on account 
of me’ (Brown), or ‘for what he had 
done in me’ (Jowett), but simply ‘in 
me’ Vulg., Clarom.), ‘ut qui im me in- 
venissent celebrationis materiam,’ Winer 
in loc.: comp. Exod. xiv. 4, évdotacSh- 
coum év bapa. God, as Windisch. ob- 
serves, was working in St. Paul, and so 
was praised in him. The prep., in such 
cases as the present, points to the object 
as being as it were the sphere in which 
(Eph. i. 17), or the substratum on which 
(1 Cor. vii. 14, see Winer, Gr. p. 345; 
compare Andoc, de Myster. p. 33, ed. 
Schiller) the action takes place. The 
transition from this to the common usage 
of éy in the sense of ‘ dependence on,’ is 
easy and obvious; see exx. in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex, s. v. A. 2. b, Vol. I. p. 909, 
and comp. Bernhardy, Syné. v. 8. b. p. 
210. 


Cuarter II. 1. 314 Sexatrecad- 
pwy érav]| ‘after an interval of, 
‘post,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Armen. ; 
dexatecodpwy mapeASdvrwy érav, Chrys. : 
comp. Acts xxiv. 17, dv éraéy tAcdvwr. 
The meaning of the prep. has here been 
unduly pressed to suit preconceived his- 


Cuap. II. 1, 2. 


avéBnv eis “IepocdAvpa peta 
Titov * 


torical views. Aud, in its temporal sense, 
denotes an action enduring through and 
out of a period of time; and may thus 
be translated during, or after, according 
as the nature of the action makes the 
idea of duration through the whole of 
the period (Heb. ii. 15, 5:4 mayrds rod 
Gv), or occurrence at the end of the 
period most prominent. Thus 6a zoA- 
Aod xpdvouv oe Edpaxa is correctly ex- 
plained by Fritz. (Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 
163, note), ‘longo temporis spatio de- 
curso (quo te non vidi) te vidi;’ comp. 
Herm. on Vig. No. 377, b. This is the 
correct use of did. There are, however, 
a few indisputable instances of a more 
lax use of the prep. in the N. T., to de- 
note an action which took place within, 
not during the whole of a period; e. g. 
Acts v. 19, 8:& ris vunrds Hvoiute, where 
both the tense and the occurrence preclude 
the possibility of its being ‘throughout 
the night’ (contr. Meyer), — so also Acts 
vi. 9—xvii. 10 is perhaps doubtful; see 
Fritz. Opuse. p. 165, Winer, Gr. § 57. 
i, p. 337. Grammatical considerations, 
then, alone are not sufficient to justify 
Dr. Peile’s paraphrase, ‘ not till after ;’ 
but on exegetical grounds it may be 
fairly urged that the mention of four- 
teen years, thus undefined by a termi- 
nus ad quem as well as a quo, would be 





singularly at variance with the circum- 
stantial nature of the narrative. With 
regard to the great historical difficulties 
in which the passage is involved, it can 
here only briefly be said;— (1) The 
terminus a quo of the fourteen years, 
being purely a subjective epoch, does 
certainly seem that time which must 
have ever been present to the Apostle’s 
thoughts, —the time of his conversion 
(Anger, Wieseler) ; especially as the érn 
rpia, ch. i. 18, appear so reckoned. 
(2) Exegetical as well as grammatical 


GALATIANS. 


43 


BapvaBa, cupraparaBov Kab 


/ al 
aveBnv 6& KaTa droKdd\uw, Kal aveSéunv avtois 


(dA) considerations seem to show it 
was St. Paul’s second journey ; — for 
how, when misconstruction was so pos- 
sible, could it be passed over? and how 
can St. Peter’s conduct be explained ? 
But ( 3) chronolog. arguments, based on 
historical coincidences, make it impos- 
sible to doubt that Ireneeus (Her. ut. 
13) and Theodoret (im Joc.) are right in 
supposing this the journey mentioned 
Acts xv., and therefore, according to St. 
Luke’s account, the third. In a com- 
mentary of this nature it is impossible 
to allude to the various efforts (even to 
the invalidaiion of an unquestionable 
text) to reconcile (2) and (3): it may 
be enough to say that both chronological 
and historical deductions seem so certain, 
that (2) must give way: see the sensi- 
ble explanation and remarks of Thiersch. 
Apost. Age, Vol. 1. p. 120 sq. (Transl.). 
A complete discussion will be found in 
the chronological works of Anger and 
Wieseler, Davidson, Introd. Vol. 1. p. 
112 sq., Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Paulus,’ 
Conyb. and Howson, S¢. Paul, ch. vii.: 
see also Meyer in Joc., Alford, Vol. 11. 
Prolegom. p. 26. cULTApAar- 
aBov nal Titov] ‘having taken with 
me also Titus ;’ the ascensive «ai per- 
haps alluding to his being uncircum- 
cised; comp. Acts xv. 2, TlatAov kal 
BapydBav nal rivas &AAOUS ef abTar. 
St. Paul was now the principal person 
(cvurapadaB dv); at the preceding (sec- 
ond) visit Barnabas seems to have taken 
the lead; see Meyer in doe. 

2. avéBnv Sé] ‘I went up too;’ 5& 
having its ‘vim exponendi’ (Fritz. i 
loc.), or, as we might perhaps more ex- 
actly say, its reiterative force (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 1. p. 361, Hartung, Par- 
tik. 5é, 2. 7, Vol. 1. p. 168), and repeat- 
ing, not without a slight opposition, the 
preceding dvéByv. The native force of 


44 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 2. 


TO evayyédov 6 Knpiocw ev Tos ESveow, Kat idiav Sé Tots 


the particle may just be traced in the 
faint contrast which the explanation and 
introduction of fresh particulars give rise 
to. Kata GwoKkdaAvypiy | ‘by, 
scil, in accordance with, revelation, — 
not for my own purposes ;’ xaTd as usual 
implying the rule, the ‘207man agendi ;’ 
see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239, 
241. Hermann’s translation ‘explica- 
tionis causa’ must, on exegetical, and 
perhaps even on grammatical grounds 
(see Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 169), certainly 
be rejected. For (1) awoxdAvyis is never 
used in this lower sense, either by St. 
Paul or any other of the sacred writers ; 
and (2) the current of the Apostle’s 
argument is totally at variance with 
such an explanation. His object is here 
to show that his visit to Jerusalem was 
not to satisfy any doubts of his own, nor 
even any suggestions of his converts, but 
in obedience to the command of God. 
The objection, that the current transla- 
tion would require kard twa amoxdAuvy 
(Herm.), may be neutralized by the ob- 
servation that card dmoxdAvyy is in effect 
used nearly adverbially ; see Eph. iii. 3. 
&vedséunrv] ‘I communicated ;’ ‘contuli 
cum eis,’ Vulg., Clarom., compare Syr. 
[patefeci]; ‘ enarravi,’ Fritz.; ‘ipsa col- 
latio unam doctrine speciem exclusa 
omni varietate monstrabat,’ Beza. The 
meaning assigned by Green (Gramm. 
N. T. p. 82) ‘to leave altogether in the 
hands of, or at the pleasure of another,’ 
is more than doubtful; in the only other 
place in the N. T. where the word oc- 
curs, Acts xxv. 4, 7@ BaotAre? dvedeTo Ta 
kara Tov TladAov, the meaning is clearly, 
as here, ‘communicated:’ see Fritz. 
Opuse. p. 169, and the exx. in Wetst. 
in loe. avtois] ‘to them,’ scil. 
to the inhabitants of ‘IepoodAuua (ver. 1), 
or rather (as the sense obviously requires 
a certain limitation), to the Christians 
residing there, —‘ Christianis gregariis’ 


(Fritz.), as opp. to rots doxotcw, the 
Apostles; comp. Matth. xii. 15, Luke 
vy. 17, and see Winer, Gr. § 22. 3. 1, p. 
131, Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 11. b, p. 288. 
The reference to the Apostles collectively 
(Schott, Olsh.), or to the Elders of the 
Church, is not by any means probable, 

kat’ idlav & é] ‘but privately,’ i.e. in 
a private conference ; comp. Mark iv. 34 ; 
the Apostle communicated his evaryyéAroy 
to the Christians at Jerusalem openly and 
unreservedly, but xa’ idiav (between me 


and them, yooso hee eee Syr.) en- 
tered probably more into its doctrinal 
aspects; compare Theod. in loc. The 
meaning assigned to d¢ (‘I mean’) by 
Alf., who appy. denies any second and 
separate communication, seems here very 
doubtful (see ver. 4), and that to kar’ 
idiay (‘ preferably,’ ‘ specially,’) by Olsh., 
distinctly untenable, as kar’ id{ay occurs 
sixteen times in the N. T’, and in all 
cases is used in a directly, or (as here) 
indirectly Jocail sense; see Mark ix. 28, 
xiii. 83, Luke x. 23, etc., and compare 
Neand. Plant. Vol. 1. p. 104. (Bohn). 
tots SoKxovaty| ‘to those who were 
high in reputation,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 
88; see Eurip. Hee. 292 (where of 50- 
kobvTes is opp. to of adogodyres), and the 
exx. collected by Kypke and Elsner, 
esp. Eur. Troad. 608, and Herodian, 
vi. 1, rods Soxodvtas kal HAiKkia ceuvord= 
tous, — in all of which of Sox. appears 
simply equivalent to émionuo (Theod.).. 
There is not then, as Olsh. conceives, 
any shade of blame or irony (Alf.) in 
the expression, but as Chrys. correctly 
observes, ‘ rots Soxovet, pnol, mera Tis 
éavtod kal Thy Kowhy amdytwy A€éywv 
Wigoy: see Cicum. in loc. ah 
wws eis kevdy Tpexe, h CSpapor| 
‘lest I might be running, or have (al- 
ready) run in vain ;’ @. e. ‘lest I might 
lose my past or present labor’ (Hamm.), 


Cuap. IL. 2, 3. 


GALATIANS. 


45 


Soxovcw, yn Tas els Kevov Tpéxyw, 7 epayov. * AN ovdde 


Titos 6 ovv éuot, “EXXnv op, 


by leaving others to deem that it was 
fruitless and unaccredited. This passage 
presents combined grammatical and exe- 
getical difficulties, both of which must 
be briefly noticed, (a) rpéxw By 
comparing the very similar passage | 
Thess. iii. 5, wharws éemelpacev ... Kal eis 
kevov yevntat kK. T. A., it would certainly 
seem that rp¢xw is pres. subj. (see Winer, 
Gr. § 56. 2, p. 448, where both passages 
are investigated); but there is a diffi- 
culty both in mood and tense. The 
former may be explained away by the 
observable tendency of the New Testa- 
ment and later writers to lapse from the 
optat. into the subjunct, (Winer, § 41. b. 
1, p. 258, Green, Gr. p. 72}; the latter, 
either by considering rpéxw a ‘then- 
present,’ opp. to @pauov, a ‘then-past,’ 
or as pointing to the continuance of the 
action. (8) «4 wws then, is not num 
forte (an opinion formerly held by 
Fritzsche, and still by Green, p. 82, but 
well refuted by Dr. Peile), but ne forte. 
(y) €5pauoyv may be explained in two 
ways; either (with Fritz.) as an indic. 
after a non-realized etc. hypoth. (Herm. 
de Partic. ty, 1. 10, p. 54), — a structure 
at which, strange to say, Hilgenf. seems 
to stumble, — or indic. after phmws (fear- 
ing lest), the change of mood implying 
that the event apprehended had now 
taken place; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 
446: compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 34. a. 
p- 364, Matth. Gr. § 520. 8. We 
have then two possible translations; (1) 
Purpose; dvedéunv... uhmws eZpapov, 
I communicated .. . that I might not per- 
chance have run in vain (as I should 
have done if I had not, etc.) (2) Appre- 
hension; dveSéunv... (poBovduevos) ph- 
mws @pauov, I communicated . . being ap- 
prehensive lest perchance I might really 
have, etc.; the verb ‘timendi’ being 
idiomatically omitted; see Gayler, de 


qvayKaosyn TepiTunS hvac 


Part, Neg. p. 327, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 
152. Of these (2) seems most in ac- 
cordance with St. Paul’s style; see 1 
Thess. 7. ¢c., and ch. iv. 11. To 
both translations, however, there are 
very grave objections; to (1) on logical, 
to (2) on exegetical grounds: to (1), 
because it was not on the communica- 
tion or non-communication of his Gos- 
pel that St. Paul’s running in vain 
really hinged, but on the assent or dis- 
sent of the Apostles: to (2), because it 
is incredible that he who went up kar’ 
amorddupw could have felt any doubt 
about his own course. To escape these 
difficulties we must adopt one of two 
explanations (neither wholly free from 
objections) ; either we must refer the 
words, objectively, to the danger St. 
Paul’s converts might have run of be- 
ing rejected by the Church if he had 
not communicated; or (which is most 
probable), subjectively, with the Greek 
commentators, to the opinions of others ; 
tva diddtw rods Taira bromtevovtas brt 
ovk eis Kevdv tpéxw, Chrys.; see Ham- 
mond im loc. If others deemed St. 
Paul’s past and present course fruit- 
less, it really must in that respect have 
amounted to a loss of past and present 
labor. 

3.aAA” od] ‘But (to distinctly 
prove, & fortiori, that I had not run in 
vain) not even,’ etc. ‘The emphasis rests 
on Tiros, — Titus, whom the apostles 
might have required to be circumcised, 
even while in general terms they ap- 
proved of St. Paul’s preaching. On 
this gradational force of aAA’ oddé (‘at 
ne — quidem,’ ‘indicant, silentio oblit- 
terata re leviore, afferri graviorem’), see 
Fritz. in loc, (Opuse. p. 178), and comp. 
Luke xxiii, 15, Acts xix. 2. The true 
separative force of &AAd (‘aliud jam 
esse quod sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar, 


46 


‘GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 3, 4. 


* 8a 8é tovs mapevodxtous wevdadérhous, oltwes TraperotdSov 
KaTacKoThaal THY édevSeplav Hua Hv éxowev €v Xprot@ Incod, 


Vol. 1. p. 2) is here distinctly apparent. 
“EAAnyv @v) ‘being a Greek’ scil. in- 
asmuch as, or though he was a Greek,’ 
kaltow“EAAny &v, Theodoret; not ‘and 
was a Greek,’ Alf., the appended parti- 
cipial clause not being predicative, but 
concessive, or suggestive of the reason 
why the demand was made; compare 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 305, Gr. 492 sq. 
hvayndodn] ‘was compelled.’ The 
choice of this word seems clearly to 
imply that the circumcision of Titus 
was strongly pressed on St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas; see Baur, Pawlus, p. 121. 
It does not, however, by any means ap- 
pear that the Apostles were party to it; 
in fact, if we assume the identity of this 
journey with the third, the language 
of Acts xv. 5 seems distinctly to imply 
the contrary. 

4,514 8& robs wapetodnrouvs 
WevdadérAgous| ‘and that, or now i 
was, because of the false brethren insid- 
tously brought in,’ scil. ok jvayxdodn 
mepitundiva; explanatory statement (5¢ 
explicative; see below) why Titus was 
not compelled to be circumcised, viz., 
because the WevdddeApo: were making it 
-aparty matter. The construction is not 
perfectly perspicuous, but it does not 
appear necessary either to regard it as 
a positive anacoluthon (Rink, Lueubr, 
Crit. p. 171, Hilgenf. im doc.), or an 
anacol. arising from two blended ‘con- 
structions (Winer, Gr. § 63, p. 502, still 
less a connection of ver. 4 with ver. 2 
(Bagge, al.). The difficulty, as the 
Greek expositors seem to have felt, is 
really in the 5¢: this, however, is neither 
mepittés (Theod. compare Theod, M.), 
nor equivalent to ovSé (compare Chrys., 
Theoph., Gicum.), but simply explica- 
tive (‘declarat et intendit,’ Beng.), and 
faintly ratiocinative; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. u. p. 362. Alford comp. 6é, ver. 


2, but the uses seem clearly different ; 
there the insertion of airozs naturally 
suggests a contrast, while here the naked 
statement odk jvayk. mepitm. as naturally 
prepares us for a restrictive explanation. 
mapetodKnrous| ‘insidiously brought 
in, Scholef. This word appears to 
have two meanings, (@) advena, adven- 
titius, ddAdrpios (Hesych., Suid., Phot.) ; 
comp. Georg. Al. Vit. Chrys. 40 (cited 
by Hase, Steph. Thes. Vol. vir. p. 187). 
mapeloaxre THs WéAEws Huey; (B) trrep- 
titius ; compare Prol. Sirach, mpédoyos 
mapeloakros, —a meaning still further 
enhanced by rapeio7ASov; compare 
2 Pet. ii. 1, Jude 4. The compound 
WevdddeApor designates those who did not 
acknowledge the great principle of faith 
in Christ being the only means of sal- 
vation (Neander, Plant. Vol. 11. p. 114, 
Bohn), while their intrusive character 
is well marked by the compounds zra- 
peiojAdov and mapemdxrovs; compare 
Polyb. Hist. 1. 18, 3, maperdyeoSa: Kab 
mapeominrev eis TAS ToALopKoumevas ™6- 
oftives| ‘men who,’ ‘a 
set of men who,’ —not simply equiva- 
lent to of (Ust.). but specifying the class 
to which they belonged; see Matth. Gr. 
§ 483, Jelf, Gr. § 816, and notes on ch. 
iv. 24, where the uses of éo7T1s are more 
fully discussed. The translation of Fritz., 
‘ quippe qui’ (comp. Herm. Gd. R. 688), 
is here unduly strong; even in classical 
Greek, what is commonly termed a causal, 
may be more correctly considered an ex- 
plicative sense; see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
s. v. 3, Vol. 1. p. 383. This, too, is the 
prevailing sense in the later writers; see 
Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. 


Aels. 


> ra 
KaTacKoTHAocat| ‘to spy oUit,’ «Cond? 
[ut explorarent] Syr., ‘explorare,’ Vulg. ; 


not ‘ut dolose eripiant libertatem Chris- 
tianam,’ (Dindorf, Steph. Thes. s v, 


Crap. II. 5, 6. GALATIANS. 


47 


” € oA , Po Py 

iva hpas KatadovOcovew * ois ovdé Trpds Hpav elEapev TH trro- 
m.. FP ee 4 na la) : 

TAY}, Way adySeva Tod etayyediov Siapeivy Tpos twas. © ard 


5. ois ob5é] These words are omitted by the first hand of D (Tisch. Cod. Cla- 
rom. p. 568) E; Irenzeus (p. 200, ed. Bened.), and, according to Jerome, in some 
Latin manuscripts: Tertullian and Ambrose appear only to have rejected the rela- 
tive; see adv. Mare. v. 3. It is obvious that such an omission would greatly 
simplify the structure, but this very fact in a critical point of view makes it sus- 
picious. When to this we add the immense preponderance of external authority, 
we can entertain but little doubt that ofs ovdé is genuine; see Bagge in loc., who 


has well discussed this reading. 


Vol. rv. p. 1232), xaracxom. being here 
used in the same (hostile) sense as ka- 
TtacKomevoat, Josh. ii. 2; dpas ras kal TH 
Tav katacKkémay mpoonyopia edjAwoe Toy 
mérAcuov éxeivwyv, Chrys, év 
Xptare| Not ‘per Christum,’ a mean- 
ing it may bear (Fritz. p. 184) but in 
the fuller and deeper sense ‘in Christ ;’ 
see notes on ver. 17. iva jas 
KatadovAdaovaty] ‘that they may 
succeed in enslaving us ;’ the tense point- 
ing to the result, the compound to the 
completeness of the act; comp. 2 Cor. 
xi. 20. Although this reading is con- 
firmed by a decided preponderance of 
uncial authority [ABCDE], and the 
improbability of a correction very great, 
still the instances of iva with a future 
are so very few (Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 
169), and these, too, so reducible in 
number (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 631), 
that we are not justified in saying more 
than this, that the future appears used 
to convey the idea of duration (Winer), 
or perhaps, rather, of issue, sequence 
(Schmalfeld, Synt. § 142; comp. Alf.), 
more distinctly than the more usual 
aorist subj. Though excessively doubt- 
ful in classical writers (Herm. Partie. 
ty, u. 13, p. 134), a few instances are 
found in later authors; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 41, b. 1, p. 259. 

 b. 7G brorayhl ‘by yielding them 
the subjection they claimed ;’ dative of 
manner; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 7. p. 194, 
comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 22, 6, p. 180. 


The article is not merely the article with 
abstract nouns (Green, Gr. p. 146), but 
is used to specify the obedience which 
the false brethren (not the Apostles, 
Fritz.) demanded in this particular case. 
h GAhSetra Tod ebvayyeAlou] ‘the 
truth of the Gospel; the true teaching 
of the Gospel, as opposed to the false 
teaching of it as propagated by Juda- 
izers, ¢. e., as in verse 16, the doctrine 
of justification by faith. The distinc- 
tion drawn by Winer (Gr. § 34. 3, p. 
211) between such expressions as the 
present, — where the governing noun is 
a distinct element pertaining to the gov- 
erned, and such as mAovrouv adnAdrns, 
1 Tim. vi. 17, xawdryns wijs, Rom. vi. 
4,— where it is more a rhetorically 
expressed attribute, though denied by 
Fritz. Rom, Vol. 1. p. 368, seems per- 
fectly just. A doctrinal import is con- 
tained in 4 4Af%ea Tod edayy., Which is 
entirely lost by explaining it as merely 
Td GANdés edaryyéALoV. Siauelyn 
pos Spas] ‘might remain steadfast 
with you,’ ‘permaneat|-eret]’ Vulg., 
Clarom. ; the 8d obviously being znten- 
sive, asin Heb. i, 11, 2 Pet. iii. 4; comp. 
Chrys., va... Toto dia tay Epywy Be- 
Badowperv. mpdos tpas| See 
on ch. i. 18. 

6. aad Si 7rav SoKobytTwyr eival 
Tt «7. A.] ‘But from those who were 
high in reputation ;’ —interrupted de- 
claration of his independence of the of 


Soxoovres. ‘The meaning of this verse 


48 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 6. 


S¢ rev Soxodvtwy elval te (67roi0l mote Haoav ovdév por Siahéper 
mpocwrov Ocos avXpwrov ov AauBdver) euol yap ot dSoKovvTes 


is perfectly clear, but the structure is 
somewhat difficult. According to the 
common explanation, ari—eivai ti is a 
sentence that would naturally have ter- 
minated with obdtv ZAaBoy or mpoceAa- 
Bounv (not ed:ddxSnv, Winer, § 47. p. 
331), or more correctly still, ovSév po 
mpocaverégn; Owing, however, to the 
parenthesis é2oto. — AauBdver, the natu- 
ral structure is interrupted, and the sen- 
tence, commenced passively, is concluded 
actively with éuol yap k. tr. A.; see Winer, 
Gr. § 63.1. 1, p. 502. The real diffi- 
culty of the sentence, however, lies in 
the following ydp. That it is (a) merely 
resumptive, Scholef. (Hints, p 74), Peile, 
al., is indemonstrable; as, of the pas- 
sages usually cited in favor of this force, 
viz. Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. ix. 19, 2 Cor. 
v. 4, Rom. xv. 27, the first three are 
clearly instances of the argumentative 
force (see Winer, Gr. § 53. 10. 3, p 403, 
Meyer on Cor. Ui.ce.), while in the fourth 
the words ¢vdécnoay yap are merely 
emphatically repeated. That it is (d) 
argumentative, either as giving a reason 
for odév wor Siapepe «x. 7. A. (Alf.), or 
for mpdcwrov @eds x. T. A. (Mey.), is 
logically and contextually improbable, 
as parenthetical and non-parenthetical 
parts would thus be confused and inter- 
mingled. If, however, yap be regarded 
as (c) explicative, the whole seems clear 
and logical. ‘To avoid the words doxotv- 
twy elvaf tt being misunderstood, and 
supposed to assign an undue preémi- 
nence to these Apostles, St. Paul hastily 
introduces the parenthetical comment, 
leaving the former sentence incomplete: 
then, feeling that its meaning was still 
so far obvious as to need some justifica- 
tion, he reverts to it, slightly qualifying 
it by the emphatic éyol, slightly justify- 
ing it by the explicative ydp, ‘to me 
(whatever they might have done for 


others) it is certainly a fact that,’ etc. 
On this explicative force of ydp, see 
Donalds. Gr. § 618, Klotz. Devar. Vol. 
I. p 233 sq., Hartung, Partik. ydp § 2, 
and comp. Liicke, John iv. 44. Of 
the other inverpretations of this difficult 
passage, none appear to deserve special 
notice except that of the Greek writers 
(Chrys., however, is silent, and Theod. 
has here a Jacuna), who connect amd Tav 
doxodvrwy immediately with ovdéy pa 
diapeper in the sense of ovdeuia wor ppov- 
tis wept tav Sox. (Theoph.), but thus 
assign an untenable meaning to ad, and 
dislocate the almost certain connection 
of émotol mor’ joay with what follows. 
Further details will be found in Meyer, 
De Wette, and Fritzsche (Opuse. p. 201 
sq-). The Vv. are for the most part 
perplexingly literal (comp. Vulg.); the 
Syr., however, by its change of yap into 


n~ 
—? seems certainly in accordance with 


the general view adopted above. 
tTav SoxotyvtTwy elval Ti| ‘whowere 


deemed to be somewhat,’ wep oct 


[qui reputati erant] Syr., ‘qui videban- 
tur,’ Vulg ; used with reference to the 
judgment of others (contrast ch. vi. 2), 
and so, perfectly similar in meaning to 
tois Soxovow, ver. 2; comp. Plato, Gorg. 
572 A, imdb moAA@v Kat Son. eval ti; 
Euthyd. 303 c, trav ceuvav Kat Son. tt 
elvat. dmutol rote] ‘qual- 
escumque ;’ mote not being temporal, 
‘olim,’ Beza (perhaps suggested by the 
‘aliquando’ of Vulg.), but connected 
with dot, which it serves to render 
more general and inclusive; compare 
Demosth. Or. de Pace, tv. 15 (p. 60), 
émola mor’ éorly airy, cited by Bloomf. 
and Fritz. in. loc. hoav may 
certainly refer to the period of the 
Apostles’ lives when they were uncon- 


Cnap. II. 6, 7. 


b \ yi 
ovdev TpocavedevTo, 


GALATIANS. 


49 


b) \ 
“ adda Tovvavtiov idovtes Ott weTmictevpat 


TO evayyédwov Tis axpoBvatias Kas Ilétpos tis mepitophs 


verted, or when they were in attendance 
on our Lord (a view strongly supported 
by Hilgenf.) ; it seems, however, far 
more natural to refer the tense to a past, 
relative to the time of writing the words. 
ovdév wot Biag.] ‘it maketh no mat- 
ter to me.’ For examples of this less 
usual, but fully defensible insertion of 
the dative, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 384, 
and comp. Wetst. zn doc. 

mpdcwmov Oeds k.7.A.] * God ac- 
cepteth no man’s person’ — mrpdowmov put 
forward with emphasis, while Seds and 
ave%p. form a suggestive contrast ( Mey.) ; 
‘God looketh not to the outward as 
men do, and judgeth on no partial prin- 
ciples, and no more did I his servant.’ 
This and the equiv. expression BAérew 
eis mpdowm. avdp. are in the N. T. al- 
ways used with a bad reference; see 
Matth. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14, Luke xx. 
21. The corresponding expression in 
the O. T. c-:£ sva (translated some- 
times Savud¢ew mpdtwmrov; comp. Jude 
16) is used occasionally in a good sense ; 
see Gen. xix. 21, and comp. Fritz. and 
Schott in Joc. TpogavésevTo| 
‘communicated nothing,’ ‘addressed no 
communication to ;’ *contulerunt,’ Vulg., 
Clarom., and more distinctly ‘ dixerunt,’ 
ZEth.-Pol. ‘notum fecerunt,’ Arm. ; as 
in ch. i. 16. In spite of the authority 
of the Greek expositors (uddovres 7a 
éuda ovdey mpooédsnray, ovdty Siopdwoar, 


Chrys), and appy of Syr. (aesv0} 
4 


-adjecerunt), Copt. [owowah.], Goth. (¢an- 
ainsokun’), al., it still seems more safe 
to retain the same meaning in both pas- 
sages. There is weight in the argument 
urged in ed. 1 (see, too, Wieseler, Chro- 
nol. p. 195 note), that mpocavéd. here 
may seem to specify addition, as in con- 
trast with aveSéunv ver. 2, still the ten- 
dency of later Greek to compound forms 


7 


(compare notes on ch. iii. 13), and the 
perfect parallelism of this with the sim- 
tlarly negative formula in ch. i. 16, are 
tacit arguments which seem slightly 
to preponderate. In the passage 
commonly referred to (Xen. Mem. m1. 
1. 8), mpocavasécda: merely implies 
‘etiam sibi adjungere, scil. suscipere’ 
(see Kiihner im Joc.), and so proves 
nothing, except that Bretschn., Olsh., 
Riick., al., must be incorrect in trans- 
lating ‘ nihil mihi preeterea imposuerunt,’ 
as this expresses a directly opposite idea. 
Under any circumstances, there is noth- 
ing either in this word, or in the whole 
paragraph, to substantiate the extraor- 
dinary position of Baur, that the Apos- 
tles only yielded to St. Paul’s views 
after a long struggle. 

7. GAAG Tobvayrlor| ‘but on the 
contrary ;’ scil. so far from giving in- 
structions to me, they practically added 
the weight of their approval: 7d évay- 
tlov Tov méuWacda 7d émavéoa, Chrys. 
Surely this was not exactly leaving St. 
Paul ‘to fight his own battle,’ Jowett, 
Alf. 
cipal instances in the New Testament 
of this well-known structure will be 
found, Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 204. On 
the use of the perfect as indicating per- 
manence, duration, ‘concreditum mihi 
habeo,’ see ib. § 40. 4, p. 242. Usteri 
calls attention to the accurate use of the 
perf. here, compared with the aorist in 
Rom, iii. 2, émoretanoar (Iovdalor) r& 


wmemiorevuat| Lhe prin- 


Adyia TOU @eod. THES GKpo- 
Bvortas] ‘of the uncireumcision,’ scil. 
mav axpoBvoTwy ; ov 7a mpdyuara Aéywv 
avtd GAAG TH Grd TovTwWY yywpiCdueva 
%3vn, Chrys.; comp. Rom. iii. 30. The 
derivation of d&xpoB. (not &xpov, Biw, but 
an Alexandrian corruption of d&«poroc- 
Sta) is discussed by Fritzsche, Rom. ii. 
26, Vol, 1. p. 136. kados TWeé- 


50 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 8, 9. 


8 € \ > / , > b ‘ an n Desh # 

(6 yap évepyjnoas Ilétpe eis arrootoniy Tis TepttowAs évnpynoev 
Kapoi eis Ta ESvn), ° Kal yvovtes tiv ydpw Thy SoSeiody por, 
"TdxwBos kai Kndbas cai Iwdvvns, of Soxodvtes otinoe eivat, de&- 


Tpos Kk. T.A.| ‘even as Peter was of the 
circumcision. St. Peter here appears as 
the representative of the ‘ Judenapostel’ 
(Meyer; comp. Grot.), on the principle 
that ‘a potiori fit denominatio;’ for 
though originally chosen out as the first 
preacher to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7), 
his subsequent labors appear to have 
been more among Jews; compare 1 Pet. 
bth On the use of xaSds, see notes 
on ch. iii. 6, and on its most suitable 
translation, compare notes on 1 Thess. 
i. 5 ( Transi.). 

8.6 yap évepy. x. 7. A.] ‘For He 
who wrought (effectually) for Peter,’ 


leak Syr., ‘Petro,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; 


not ‘in Petro,’ Grot.; historical con- 
firmation of what precedes, added paren- 
thetically. There are four constructions 
of évepyéw in St. Paul’s Epp. ; (a) évep- 
yéw 71, 1 Cor. xii. 11; (b) évepyéw ey 
twit, Eph. ii. 2; (€) evepyéw me &y Tm, 
ch. iii 5; (d) évepyéw tim ets ti, here; 
comp. Prov. xxxi. 12, In this latter 
case the dative is not governed by évep- 
yéw, as the verb is not a pure compound 
[there is no form épyéw], but is the dat. 
commodi, ‘O évepyhoas, it may be 
observed, is not Christ (Chrys., Aug.), 
but God (Jerome); for, in the first 
place, St. Paul always speaks of his 
Apostleship as given by God (Rom. xv. 
15, 1 Cor. xv. 10, Eph. iii. 2) through 
Christ (Rom. i. 5; compare ib. xv. 18, 
and ch. i. 1); and secondly, this évepyeiv 
is distinctly ascribed to God, 1 Cor. xii. 
6, Phil. ii. 13. els &TocTO- 
Athy] ‘for or towards the Apostleship,’ 
a. e. for the successful performance of it 
(Hamm.), not merely ‘in respect of it’ 
(Mey.), — a meaning lexically admissi- 
ble both in classical writers (Rost u. 


Palm, Lez. s, v. eis, v. 2, Vol. 1. p. 804), 
and in the N. T, (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 
354) but here contextually insufficient, 
as the sense seems almost obviously to 
require the more definite notion of pur- 
pose, or contemplated object; compare 
2 Cor, ii. 12, eis Td edayyéAsov (to preach 
the Gospel), Col. i. 29. The second eis 
is joined with ra vn by what is called 
‘comparatio compendiaria,’ Jelf, Gr. § 
781. 

9. nal yvdvres] ‘and having be- 
come aware ;’ continuation of the inter- 
rupted narrative; iddvres (Ver. 7).... 
kal yvdyres. The former participle ap- 
pears to refer to the mental impression 
produced, when the nature and success 
of St. Paul’s preaching was brought 
before them; the latter, to the result of 
the actual information they derived from 
him; but see notes ch. iv. 9. 
’ldnwBos] ‘James,’ the Brother of 
our Lord (ch. i. 9), Bishop of Jerusalem, 
—and as such placed first in order in 
the recital of acts that took place in that 
Church. Ireneus (Haer. m1. 12, ad 
fin.) in noticing this subject, uses the 
strong expression ‘qui circa Jacobum 
Apostoli;’ see Grabe in loc. The 
reading Térp. xa “Idx. has but weak 
external support [DEFG; Clarom., 
Goth., Theod. (4), Greg. Nyss., al.], 
and on internal grounds is highly sus- 
picious. of Soxodrvtesk.7.A.] 
‘who have the reputation of being,’ ods 
mdytes TavtTaxov mepipépovow, Chrys. ; 
doxéw not being pleonastic, but retaining 
its usual and proper meaning; see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. § 65. 7, p. 540. The 
metaphor is illustrated by Suicer Thes. 
S. Vv. oriAos, Vol. 1. 1044, Wetst. in 
Joc., and (from Rabbinical writers) by 
Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 728, 729, 


Cuap. IL. 9, 10. 


GALATIANS. 


51 


\ bY b] \ : a 
tas xav éuot Kal BapvaBa Kowwvias: va jyels eis Ta ESvn, 
> \ \ > \ / , r n 
avtol 5é eis THY TepiTounY " ovoy TOY TTwWYaV iva pYnMovetw- 
A 9 eee | , n a 
fev, 0 Kal €oTrovdaca avTO TOUTO TroLnoaL. 


The most apposite quotations are per- 
haps, Clem. Ram. 1. 6, of dixadraror 
orbaAa, Euseb. Hist. vi. 41, oreppot at 
foKdpiot GTVAOL. Settas...Kor- 
vevias| ‘right hands of fellowship,’ scil, 
in the Apostolic office of teaching and 
preaching; comp. Schulz, Abendm. p. 
190 sq. The remark of Fritzs. (Opuse. 
p- 220, comp. Mey.),— ‘articulum rds 
dekids Tis Kowwvias non desiderabit, qui 
det. now. dextras sociales, t.e. dex- 
tras ejusmodi, quibus societas confletur 
valere reputaverit,’ is scarcely necessary. 
As defids in the phrase detias did5dvar 
(1 Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50) is usually 
anarthrous, the principle of correlation 
(Middleton, Gr. Art. 11. 33) causes it 
to be omitted with kowwvias; compare 
Winer, Gr. § 18. 2. 6, p. 142. The sep- 
aration of the gen. from the subst. on 
which it depends occurs occasionally in 
St. Paul’s Epistles, and is usually due 
either to explanatory specification (Phil. 
ii, 10), correction (1 Thess. ii. 13), em- 
phasis (1 Tim. iii. 6), or, as appy. here, 
merely structural reasons, — the natural 
union of defids and Zdwxay, and of gw- 
kav and its dative; comp. Winer, Gr. 
30. 3. 2, p- 172. iva nm eis 
Ta Sv} ‘that we—to the Gentiles,’ 
not evayyedCSueda (Winer, Gr. p 518), 
as this verb is not found with eis in St. 
Paul’s Epp. (Mcy.), but either simply 
mopevdaper, or perhaps better amdoro- 
Aot vyevdueda, ‘apostulatu fungeremut,’ 
Beza. It is scarcely necessary to 
add that this compact was intended to be 
rather general than specific, and that the 
terms %vn and mepirou)) have more of 
a geographical than a merely personal 
reference. St. Paul knew himself to be 
the Apostle of the Gentiles (comp. Rom. 
xi. 13); but this did not prevent him 


(kata Td eiwdds, Acts xvii. 2), while in 
Gentile lands, preaching first to the 
Jews; see Acts xvii. 10, xviii. 5, xix. 8. 
The insertion of wév after quets [with 
ACDE; more than thirty mss. ; Copt., 
Syr.-Philox. ; Chrys. al.] seems certainly 
a grammatical insertion. 

10. udvov Tav TTwXGY K.T.A.| 
‘only that we should remember the poor ;’ 
limiting clause dependent on detids Zdw- 
kay and expressive of the condition at- 
tached to the general compact: ‘we 
were to go to the Gentiles, they to the 
circumcision, with this stipulation only, 
that we were not to forget the poor in 
Judea ;’) comp. Rom. xv. 26, 27, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 3. There is thus no ellipsis of 
aitovvTes, mapaxadodytes, or indeed of 
any verb; the udvoy carries its own ex- 
planation; ‘imperium ipsd voce pdvoy 
adsignificatum, ut id sit quod ka) map- 
fryyetAay,’ Fritzsche, Matth. Excurs. 1. 
p. 839. 6 Kat 
kK. 7. A.] ‘which very thing I was also 
forward to do,’ literally ‘ which, namely, 
this very thing, I was also,’ etc.; adrd 


écTrotdaca 


m Oo = 
Touro ( joo a1 Syr.) not being redun- 


dantly joined with 8, ‘ per Hebraismum’ 
(Riick., B. Crus., and even Conyb.), but 
simply forming an emphatic epexegesis 
of the preceding relative; see Winer, 
Gr. § 22. 4, p. 184. Occasionally in 
the N. T. (Mark i. 7, vii. 25, Rev. vil. 
2 al., and (as might be conceived) not 
uncommonly in the LXX., there seem 
to be clear instances of a Hebraistic re- 
dundancy of the simple airds, but appy. 
never of this stronger form aidrds od70s ; 
sce Winer, Gr. J.c., and comp. Bornem. 
Schol. Luc. p. Lv. écrovdaca] 
‘I was forward, ‘1 evinced omovd4;’ 
with an appended object-infin. ; comp. 


52 


When Peter dissembled, I 
withstood and rebuked him, 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II, 11. 


1 "Ore 58 pASev Kyhas els ’Avtidyevay, 


urging that to observe the law as a justifying principle is to make void the grace of God. 


Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17. The aor. is 
here correctly used, not for the perfect 
(Conyb.), nor even for the pluperf., nor 
yet exactly as expressing the habit (com- 
pare Alf.), — this usage being somewhat 
doubtful in the N. T. (see Winer, Gr. 
§ 40. 5. 1, p. 248, and notes on Eph. i. 
3),— but simply an historical fact that 
belongs to the past, without its being 
affirmed or denied that it may nut con- 
tinue to the present; See Fritz. de Aor. 
Vi, p. 17, and on 1 Thess. ii. 16. 

The passages usually adduced (Rom. 
xv. 27, } Cor. xvi. 1 8q., 2 Cor. viii. 1 
sq., compare Acts xi. 17 sq. xxiv. 17) 
illustrate the practice, but not the tense, 
being subsequent to the probable date of 
this Epistle. All historical deductions 
from this passage, except, perhaps, that 
Barnabas had recently left St. Paul 
(hence the sing.; see Winer, in Joc.), 
seem very precarious. 

ll. dre 5 HASEv Knoas] ‘But 
when Cephas came,’ ete. Still further 
proof of the Apostle’s independence by 
an historical notice of his opposition to, 
and even reproval of St. Peter’s incon- 
sistent conduct at Antioch: see some 
good remarks on this subject in Thiersch. 
History of Church, Vol. 1. p. 123 sq. 
(Transl.). The reading Mézpos ( Rec.) 
is fairly supported [DEFGJK ; Demid., 
Goth.; mss.; Chrys., al.], but still even 
in external authority inferior to Knas, 
[Lachm., Tisch., with ABCH; a few 
mss. ; Syr., Copt , Sahid.; Clem., al.], not 
to mention the high probability of Mérpos 
having been an explanatory change. 
kata tpdawror] ‘tothe face, Auth, 


‘in faciem,’ Vulg., masts [in fa- 
a 4 4 

ciem ejus}] Syr., — not ‘coram omnibus, 

aperto Marte’ (Elsn., Conyb., al.), this 

being specified in gumrpooSev mdvrwy, ver. 

14: comp. Acts xxv. 16, and perhaps ib, 


iii. 13, card tpdowmoy TMiAdrov, ‘tothe face 
of Pilate.’ ‘The preposition has here its 
secondary local meaning, ‘e regione ;’ 
the primary idea of horizontal direction 
(Donalds. Gr, § 479) passing naturally 
into that of local opposition, This may 
be very clearly traced in the descriptions 
of the positions of troops, ete., by the 
later military writers; e. g. Polyb. Hist. 
1. 34.5, of Kara tobs éAédaytas Taxdév- 
tes; tb. tb. 9, of kata 7d Aaidy; With 
mpdowmov, tb, 111, 65, 6, x1. 14. 6: see 
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20, b, p. 240, Do- 
bree, Advers. Vol. 1. p. 114. The 
gloss kata oxjua (in appearance, — not 
in reality) adopted by Chrys., Jerome, 
and several early writers, is wholly un- 
tenable, and due only to an imnocent 
though mistaken effort to salve the 
authority of St. Peter, appy. first sug- 
gested by Origen [Strom. Book x.]: 
see Jerome, Epist. 86—97, esp. 90, the 
appy. unanswerable objections of Augus- 
tine (Epist. 8—19), the sensible remarks 
of Bede in éoc., and for much curious 
information on the whole subject, Dey- 
ling, Obs. Saer. Vol. tz. p. 520 sq. (No. 
45). iri kaTeyvwopuevos 
jv] ‘because he had been condemned ;’ 
not ‘reprehensibilis,’ Vulg., nor even 
‘reprehenstonem incurrerat,’ Winer, but 
simply ‘ reprehensus erat,’ Clarom., Goth., 
Syr.-Phil. (Syr. paraphrases), al. 

As this clause has been much encum- 
bered with glosses, it will be best to 
notice separately both the meaning of 
the verb and the force of the participle. 
(1) Karayryvdéonew (generally with tivds 
Tt, more rarely, tivé Tevos) has two prin- 
cipal meanings; (a) ‘to note accurately ;” 
usually in a bad. sense, ¢. g., ‘detect,’ 
Prov. xxviii. 11 (Aquil. ét:yvidores) ‘think 
ill of,’ Xen. Mem. 1. 3, 10: (8) ‘to note 
judicially,’—cither in the lighter sense 
of accuse (probably 1 John iii. 20; see 


Crap. IT. 11, 12. 


GALATIANS. 


53 


\ , big es Fe, , % ‘ 

KATA TPOTWTOY AUT avTéTTHY, OTL KaTEyVwopEVOS tv. ™ apo 
a \ AS nr > \ ef 4 A val % a / 

Tov yap €ANciv Twas amo IaxwBov peta tov ESvdv cuvycS.er 

ig 5 Sete C.K \ 

OTe 5é HANov, bTréecTEArEv Kal adwpifev Eavtov, PoBovpevos, Tors éx 


Liicke in Joc.), or the graver of condemn 
(the more usual meaning). (2) The 
perf. part. pass. cannot be used as a pure 
verbal adjective. The examples adduced 
by Elsner im Joe. will all bear a different 
explanation; and even those in which 
the use of the participle seems to ap- 
proach that of the Hebrew part. (Gesen. 
Gr. § 131. 1), such as Rev. xxi. 8 (perf. 
part.), Jude 12 (aor.), or Heb xii. 18 
(pres.), can all be explained grammat- 
ically ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 307. 
The only tenable translations, then, are 
(a) ‘he had been accused,’ or (b) ‘he had 
been condemned ;’ and of these (6) seems 
obviously most in accordance with the 
context and the nature of the case. As 
St. Peter’s conduct had been condemned, 
not merely by himself (Alf), but, as 
seems more natural, generally by the 
sounder body of Christians at Antioch, 
St. Paul, as the representative of the 
anti-Judaical party, feels himself author- 
ized to rebuke him, and that too (ver. 
14), publicly, 

12. ‘ruvas ard *“laxdBov may 
be connected together, and grammati- 
cally translated, ‘some of the followers 
of James;’ see Jelf, Gr. 620. 3, Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v.12, p. 222. As, how- 
ever, in the New Testament, this mode 
of periphrasis (of &d Kx. 7. A.) appears 
mainly confined to places (Mark xiii. 
22, Acts vi. 9, xxvii. 24, al.), or abstract 
substantives (Acts xv. 5), it will seem 
most exact to connect ad "Iax. with 
érseiv. So distinctly Aith.-Pol., omit- 
ting, however, the tuvés: the other Vv. 
mainly preserve the order of the Greek. 
We certainly cannot deduce from this 
that they were ‘ sent by James’ (Theoph., 
Mey., Alf.), for though this use of amd 
does occur (comp. Matth. xxvi. 47 with 


Mark xv. 43, and see Fritz. Matth. Vol. 
I. p. 779), yet the common meaning of 
the prep. in such constructions is local 
rather than ethical, — separation rather 
than mission from: compare Knapp, 
Seript. Var. Argum. p. 510. The men 
in question probably represented them- 
selves as rigid followers of St. James, 
and are thus briefly noticed as having 
come amd “IaxéBov, rather than ad 
‘IepovoAvuwr. cuvvno drier] ‘was 
eating with them,’ 7. e. again followed 
that course which in the case of Cor- 
nelius similarly called forth the censure 
of of é mepirouys (Acts xiii. 3), but was 
then nobly vindicated. Of the two 
following verbs iméor. and apap. (both 
governing éaurdy), the first does not 
mark the secret, the second the open 
course (Matth.), but simply the énitial 
and more completed acts, respectively ; 
the second was the result of the first, 
De Wette én Joc. The reading 7A- 
Sev (Lachm.) has insufficient external 
authority [BDIFG; 2 mss.; Clarom.], 
and is a not improbable confirmation to 
the sing. which follows.  o- 
Bovmevos' * fearing, ‘because he 


feared,’ lon ‘Qua \ ae [quia 
timebat]; causal participle explaining 
the feeling which led to the preceding 
acts; ‘timens ne culparetur ab illis,’ 
Treneus, Her. 11. 12 (ad fin.). The 
Greek commentators [there is a lacuna 
in Theod.] and others (see Poli Synops. 
in loc.) have endeavored to modify the 
application of this word, but without 
lexical authority. As on a different oc- 
casion (Matth. xiv. 30), so here again 
the apostle drew back from a course into 
which his first and best feelings had 
hastily led him. Some strongly-ex- 


GALATIANS. Cuap. II. 13, 14. 


54 


fol 13 \ IS > a \ e \ hf 6 fal 
TrEPLTOMNS” Kal CUVUTTEKPLYNoaY AVT@ Kal ol AotTrot Lovoatot, 
4 x B / / % p Lo! A ig ‘ 14 ir b] 
WOTE Kab apvaBas oO WamTr)xX ) AVUTWY T)) UT OKplo€t. a 


14, “Iovdaixas Gs] This order is maintained by ABCFG; 37. 73. 80; Boern., 
Am., Demid. (three other mss.), Amit.; Or., Phil. (Carp.); many Lat. Ff. (but 
kal ov« "lovd. omitted in Clarom., Sang., Ambrst. Sedul., Agap.): so Lachm., 
Meyer. Tisch. reads éSv. Gis kai odk “Iovd., with DEJK ; nearly all mss. ; majority 
of Vv.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., Theophyl., Gicum., (Rec., Scholz, Alf.) External 
authority thus appears decidedly in favor of the text, and is but little mollified by 
internal arguments, for a correction of the perspicuity (é3v. ¢jjs) is quite as probable 


as the assumed one ‘ for elegance.’ (A/f.) 


pressed remarks on this subject will be 
found in South, Serm. xxvut. Vol. m. 
p. 476 (Tegg). 

13. cvuvuTenp. abr @] ‘joined with 
him in dissimulation ;’ result of the bad 
example,—the secession of the rest of 
the Jewish Christians at Antioch from 
social communion with the Gentile con- 
verts, The meaning of gcuvumexp. is 
softened down by Syr. [subjecerunt se 
cum illo) Clarom. (‘consenserunt cum 
illo’), al., but without reason ; these very 
Christians of Antioch were the first who 
knew and rejoiced at (Acts xv. 31) the 
practically contrary decision of the Coun- 
cil. A good ‘prelectio’ on this text 
will be found in Sanderson, Works, Vol. 
Iv. p. 44 (ed. Jacobs). borte| 
‘so that, — as a simple matter of fact. 
In this form of the consecutive sentence 
the distinction between éore with the 
indic. and the infin. can scarcely be 
maintained in translation. The latter 
(the objective form, as it is termed by 


Schmalfeld), is used when the result is 


a necessary and logical consequence of 


' what has previously been enunciated ; 
‘ the former, when it is stated by the 


_ 


writer (the subjective form) as a simple 


- and unconditioned fact; see Klotz, De- 


var, Vol. 1. p. 772, and esp, Schmal- 
feld, Synt. § 155 sq., and Ellendt, Lez. 
Soph. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 1101 sq., where 
the uses of this particle are well dis- 
cussed. Here, for example, St. Paul 


a@s| It is difficult to imagine 


notices the lapse of Barnabas as a fact, 
Without implying that it was a neces- 
sary consequence of the behavior of the 
others. This distinction, however, is 
appy- not always observed in the N. T., 
nor indeed always in classical writers ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. 1, p. 269. 
cvvatTHhxsn avtTav TH broxpl- 
get} ‘was carried away with them by 
their dissimulation,’ scil. into dissimu- 
lation: ‘cum dativo persone guvamdy. 
simul cum aliquo abduci,’ etc., declarat ; 
cum dativo rei, simul per rem abduct, 
etc., significat,’ Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 
m1. p. 88 sq. bv thus refers to the 
companions in the 7d dmdyeoSa; tro- 
kptoet to the instrument by which, — not 
‘rei ad quam’ (Bretsch., comp. Alf.), a 
questionable construction even in poetry 
(Bernhardy, Synt., m. 12, p. 95),— 
and, by obvious inference, the state into 
which they were carried away; see 2 
Pet. iii. 17. Fritzsche cites Zosim. 
Hist. v. 6, kat ath 5& } Sadptyn ovvarh- 
VETO TH KoWh Tis “EAAASos Ghdoet kK. T.A.? 
add Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 311, 77 
Hdovh ovvatraryduevos. ‘Yardéxpiots 
is well paraphrased by Wieseler (Chro- 
nol. p. 197), as ‘a practical denial of 
their better [spiritual] insight,’ — and 
(we add) of their better feelings and , 
knowledge; see above, on guvurrexp. 

14. dpSomrodo0tcry| ‘walk wup- 
rightly ;’ an &mak Aeydu. in the N. T., 
and very rare elsewhere; Dindorf and 


Cuap. II. 14. 


GALATIANS. 


55 


Ore edov STL ovK opronododaw Tpos THV adafevay Tov evayyeriov, 
elTrov TO Kahe éympoosev mavrwv Ei od Iovéaios imdpSwv &S- 
VuKaS Kat ovK ‘lovdaixds Shs, Tas TA Evy avayKdters "Tovdaitew ; 


why Tisch. rejected this reading, supported as it is by ABCDEFG; mss. ; major- 
ity of Vv.; Or., Dam., and Lat. Ff. (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm., De Wette, Mey yer, 
approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 123.) For zi, which seems very much like an 
interp., the authorities are JK; great majority of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al. ; Chrys. 


Theod., Theophyl., Gicum. (Ree., Tisch.) 


Jacobs in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. cite a 
few instances from later writers, e. g. 
Theodor. Stud. p. 308 3, 443 p, 473 p, 
509 p, 575 =; but I have not succeeded 
in verifying the quotations. The mean- 
ing, however, is sufficiently obvious, and 
rightly expressed by the ‘ recte ambulare’ 
of Vulg., Syr., and the best Vv.: comp. 
épS%émovs (Soph. Antig. 972), the similar 
verb épSoroueiv, 2 Tim. ii. 15, and notes 
én loc. 
present in the narration of a past event, 
when ‘continuance’ or ‘ process’ is im- 
plied, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. ¢, p. 239, 
and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 6, p. 
96. mpos tThv &AHS.] ‘ac- 
cording to the truth,’ ¢. e. ‘according to 
the rule of;’ the prep. here seeming to 
mark not so much the aim or direction 
{Hamm., Mey., Alf.), as the rule or 
measure of the dépSomobdeiv ; comp. 2 Cor. 
v. 10, xoulonta,.... mpds & &mpater, 
and see Winer, Gr, § 49. h, p. 361. 
The objection of Meyer, that St. Paul 
always expresses ‘rule,’ ‘measure,’ etc., 
after verbs eundi by xard, not mpds, does 
not here fully apply ; as motion is much 
more obscurely expressed in ép%omodeiy 
than mepimareiy (St. Paul’s favorite verb 
of moral motion), which appears in all 
the instances that Meyer has adduced, 
viz. Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3. 
Zumpoocxev mavrwy| ‘before all 
“men ;’ *publicum scandalum non pote~- 
rat private curari,) Jerome; compare 
1 Tim. v. 20. The speech which 
follows (ver. 14—21) is appy. rightly 
regarded as the substance of what was 


On the idiomatic use of the - 


said by the Apostle on this important 
occasion ; see on ver. 15. ésvi- 
K@s CFs] ‘livest after a Gentile fashion,’ 
scil. in thy general and habitual way of 
living. The tense must not be over- 
pressed. St. Peter was not at that exact 
moment living éSvixnds ; his former con- 
duct, however (weta tov edvav ovVhe- 
Sev, ver. 12), is justly assumed by St. 
Paul as his regular and proper course of 
living (comp. Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. 
p. 83, Bohn), and specified as such to 
give a greater force to the reproof; see 
Usteri in loc. avayKkacers] 
‘constrainest thou ;? not ‘invitas exem- 
plo,’ Grot., nor even ‘ wouldest thou con- 
strain,’ Conyb., but simply and plainly 


‘cogis,’ Vulg., onl Syr., with reference 
vw 2 


to the moral influence and _ practical 
constraint (Hamm., Fell) which the 
authority and example of an Apostle 
like St. Peter could not fail to have 
exercised on the Christians at Antioch. 
To suppose that the Apostle joined with 
of ard "lax. in actual outward coercion 
(Wieseler, Chronol, p. 198), is neither 
required by the word (see remarks in 
Sturz, Lex. Xenoph. Vol. 1. p. 186) nor 
in any way to be inferred from the con- 
text. Iovdat ery] ‘to Judaize,’ 
‘Judaizare,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘ iudaivis- 
kon,’ Goth.; not merely synonymous 
with "Iovdaixas Civ (Schott, comp. Syr.), 
but probably a little more definite and 
inclusive, and carrying with it the idea 
of a more studied imitation and obe- 
dience; compare Hsth. viii. 17. 


56 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IL. 15, 16. 


% iets pioet Iovdaior cai ove €& ESv@v apaptworol ™ eidores 5é 


16, miorews Xpicrod] Tisch. omits Xpicrod, with FG; Boern.; Tert. Theod. 
(1),— but here again on insufficient external authority, and not without the omis- 


sion seeming to be intentional, to avoid the thrice-repeated Xp. in one verse. 


In 


favor of the text are ABCDE; mss.; Clarom., Vulg., al.; Chrys. (2), (Rec., 


Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., De W.). 


15. juets x. 7. A.) § We,’ scil. ‘you 
and I, and others like us;’ xowvomote? Td 
Aeyduevov, Chrys. St. Paul here begins, 
as Meyer observes, with a concessive 
statement: *‘ We, I admit, have this ad- 
vantage, that by birth we are Jews, not 
Gentiles, and consequently (xa) consecu- 
tive, comp. notes on 1 Thess. iv., 1 and 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 107) as such, 
sinners.’ In the very admission, how- 
ever, there seems a gentle irony; ‘born 
Jews — yes, and nothing more — sinners 
of the Jews at best ;’ comp. Stier, Ephes. 
Vol. 1. p. 257. With regard to the 
construction, it seems best with Herm. 
to supply éouev to this verse, which thus 
constitutes a concessive protasis, ver. 16 
(ciddres 5€ x. 7. A.) Supplying the apo- 
dosis. It is now scarcely necessary to 
add, that in sentences of this nature 
there is no ellipsis of wév: ‘recte autem 
ibi non ponitur (uév) ubi aut non sequi- 
tur membrum oppositum, aut scriptores 
oppositionem addere nondum constitue- 
rant, aut loquentes alterius membri op- 
positionem qudacunque de causd non 
indixerunt,’ Fritz. Rom. x. 19, Vol. 1. 
p- 423; compare Jelf, Gr. § 770, and 
Buttmann, Mid. (Excurs. x11.) p. 148.- 
This verse and what follows have been 
deemed as addressed to the Galatians 
either directly (Calv. Grot.), or indirectly, 
in the form of meditative musings (Jow- 
ett),— but with but little plausibility. 
The speech seems clearly continued to 
the end of the chapter (Chrys., Theod., 
Jerome), and to be the swbstance of what 
was said: it is not, however, unnatural 
also to suppose that it may here be ex- 
pressed in a slightly altered form, and 


in a shape calculated to be more intel- 
ligible, and more immediately applicable 
to the Apostle’s present readers, For a 
paraphrase, see notes to Transl., and 
also Usteri, Lehrb. 11, 1. 2, p. 161. 

giceil ‘by nature;’ not merely by 
habit and custom as the proselytes; é« 
yévous kal ov mpoondvto, Theod. Mops. 
This passage is important as serving to 
fix the meaning of vous in loci dogmat- 
ici, such as Eph. ii. 3: see esp. Stier, 
Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 257. 


&amMapT w- 


Aot] The point of view from which a 


Jew must naturally consider them (Eph. 
ii. 12); perhaps with slight irony (Stier, 
Red. Jes. Vol. vt. p. 307). That they 
were so regarded needs no other proof 
than such expressions as teAdva kal 
dyuaptwrot ; comp. Tobit xiii. 6. 

16. eiidres Sé] ‘but as we know,’ 


° > 
hte? ‘\Qadldo [quia novimus] 
Syr.; causal participle (Jelf, Gr. § 697, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207) attached to 
émoatevoapev, and introducing the apo- 
dosis to the concessive sentence. Recon- 
sideration seems still to show that of 
the many explanations of this difficult 
passage, this is appy. the simplest. Ac- 
cording to the common interpret., ei. dé 
.... Xpiorod forms an interposed sen- 
tence between ver. 15 and the latter part 
of ver. 16; but here dé is a serious ob- 
stacle, as its proper force can ‘only be 
brought out by supplying although (De 
W..) to ver. 15, unless, indeed, with Alf. 
we venture on the somewhat doubtful 
translation ‘nevertheless,’ or fall back 
[with AD?K; some Vv.; Greek Ff. 
(Ree.)] on the still more doubtful omis- 





Cnap. II. 16. 


GALATIANS. 


57 


ef > 

OTL ov Sixarodtat dvSpwrros é& epywv voyou édv pn bid Tic- 
’ an fa) lal fa) 

teas Inood Xpictov, cal mets eis Xpiotov “Inoody émictev- 


sion. dixatodras| ‘is justified,’ 
‘Deo probatus redditur ;’ 7d dixaododa 
being in antithesis to 7d edpicxecdSa 
G&paptwady, ver. 17; see Schott in loc., 
where the different meanings of d:caotc- 
Sa: are explained with great perspicuity. 
The broad distinction to be observed is 
between (a) the absolute use of the verb, 
whether with regard to God (Luke vii. 
29), Christ (1 Tim. iii. 16), or men 
(Rom. iv. 2, James ii. 21); and (8) the 
relative use (‘ratione habita vel contro- 
versize, cui obnoxius fuerit, vel peccato- 
rum, quz vere commiserit’). In this 

latter division we must again distinguish 
between the purely judicial meaning 
(Matth. xii. 37) and the far wider dog- 
matical meaning, which involves the 
idea not only of forgiveness of past sins 
(Rom, vi. 7), but also of a spiritual 
change of heart through the in-working 
power of faith. See more in Schott in 
loc., and in Bull, Harm. Apost. Ch. 1. 
§ 2 (with Grabe’s notes), and on the 
whole subject consult Homily on Salv. 
mt. 1, Jackson, Creed, Book 1v. 6, 7, 
Waterland on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 1 sq. 
and esp. the admirable explanations and 
distinctions of Hooker, Serm. 1. Vol. 
ut. p. 609 sq. (ed. Keble). és 
Epywv vopmoul ‘by the works of the 
law ;’ as the cause of the dixaodcSar; 
comp. Bull, Harm. Apost, Ch. t. § 8, 
with the notes of Grabe, p. 16 (ed. 
Burt.). With regard to the exact force 
of éx, it may be observed that in its 
primary ethical sense it denotes (a) ori- 
gin (more immediate, &rd more remote) ; 
from which it passes through the inter- 
mediate ideas of (8) result from, and 
(vy) consequence of, to that of (5) nearly 
direct causality (Rost u. Palm, Lez. éx, 
Iv. 1), thus closely approximating to 
im) with a gen, (a common use in 

8 


Herod.) and 8a with a gen. (Fritz, 
Rom. v. 16, Vol. 1. p. 332). In many 
cases it is hard to decide between these 
different shades of meaning, especially 
in a writer so varied in his use of prepp. 
as St. Paul: here, however, we are guided 
both by the context and by the analogy 
of Scripture. From both it seems clear 
that é« is here in its simple cazsal sense ; 
the whole object of the speech being to 
show that the works of the law have no 
‘causalis évépyeia’ in man’s justification, 
On the contrary, in the antithetical pas- 
sage in St. James (ch. ii. 24) just as 
dixaodcdau has a slightly different (more 
inclusive) meaning (see Hooker, Serm, 
11. 20), so also has the prep., — which 
proportionately recedes from ideas of 
more direct, to those of more remote 
causality (causa sine qua non); comp. 
Hamm., Pract. Catech. p. 78 (A. C. L.). 
vdmov] Gen. objecti : ‘deeds by which 
the requisitions of the law are fulfilled,’ 
‘eorum prestationem que lex precipit’ 
(Beza),—the ttnn trws of the 
Rabbinical writers, and the directly 
antithetical expression to dauapthuara 
vouov, Wisdom ii. 12 (Mey.); see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 167. The 
vduos here, it need scarcely be said, is 
not merely the ceremonial (Theod., al.), 
but the whole law, — the Mosaic law in 
its widest significance; see Fritz. Rom. 
ut. 20, Vol. 1. p. 179. éav ph| 
Two constructions here seem to be 
blended, od Six. avSp. e pwr vduov, and 
ob duc. SvSp. day wh Bia mlorews “I. X. 
The two particles, though apparently 
equivalent in meaning to 4&AAd, never 
lose their proper exceptive force: see 
Fritz. Rom. xiv. 14, Vol. m1. p. 195, 
and notes on ch. i. 7. d:a wie- 
Trews "Incod Xpicrod] ‘by faith in 
or on Jesus Christ ;’ «per fidem in Jesu 


58 GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 16. 


led an ] , a \ >’ 3 ” 
caper, wa SicalwSapev éx tictews Xpistov Kal ovn €& épyov 
vouov, Sidte €& Epywv vopov od dixawwSjoeta, Taca capé. 


Christo collocatam,’ Rom, iii. 22. Stier 
(Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 447) explains ior. 
"Ino. Xp. both here and (esp.) ch. iii. 22, 
in a deeper sense, ‘ faith which belongs 
to, has its foundation im Christ’ (comp. 
Mark xi. 22, Ephes. iii. 12), the gen. 
"Ino. Xp. being the gen. subjecti. This 
view may deserve consideration in other 
places, but here certainly the context 
and preceding antithesis seem decidedly 
in favor of the more simple gen, odjecti. 
It may be observed that dia here closely 
approximates in meaning to é« below, 
the same idea of causality being (as 
Meyer suggests) expressed under two 
general forms, origin and means. We 
must be careful, then, not to press un- 
duly the distinction between the prepp. : 
the antithesis is here not so much be- 
tween the modes of operation, as between 
the very nature and essence of the prin- 
ciples themselves. As to the doctrinal 
import of 3:4 wlorews, Waterland (on 
Justif. p. 22) well remarks, that ‘faith 
is not the mean by which grace is 
wrought or conferred, but the mean 
whereby it is accepted or received ;’ it is 
‘the only hand,’ as Hooker appropriately 
says, ‘ which putteth on Christ to justifi- 
cation,’ Serm. 11, 31: consult also Forbes, 
Consid. Mod. Book 1. 3. 10—13. 

The order Xpiorod *Inood is adopted by 
Lachm., but on external authority [AB ; 
Aug.] that cannot be deemed sufficient. 
kal nmuets| ‘we also;’ ‘nos etiam 
quanquam natalibus Judzi, legi Mosis 
obnoxii,’ Schott. émiotevoa- 
ev eis Xp. "Ina.] ‘put our faith in 
Jesus Christ ;’ not ‘have become be- 
lievers,’ Peile, but simply aoristic, the 
tense pointing to the particular time 
when this act of faith was first man- 
ifested: see Windischm. im Joe. In 
the formula morevew eis with ace., — 


less usual in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom, 
x. 14, i. 29), but very common in St. 
John, — the preposition retains its proper 
force, and marks not the mere direc- 
tion of the belief (or object toward which), 
but the more strictly theological ideas of 
union and incorporation with ; compare 
notes on ch. iii. 27, Winer, Gr. § 31, 
5, p. 191, and for the various construc- 
tions of moredw in the New Testament, 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 17, and Reuss, Théol, 
Chret. tv. 14, Vol. 1. p. 129. The dis- 
tinction drawn by Alf. between Xp. "Ine. 
in this clause and “Ino. Xp. above seems 
very precarious, esp. in a passage where 
there is so much diff. of reading. 

5.1671] ‘because that,’ ‘propter quod,’ 


Vulg., 9\ngeSS Syr. ; scarcely ‘for’ (it 


is an axiom that), Alf.,—for though 
5:67: [properly guam ob rem, and then 
guoniam| is often used by later writers 
in a sense little, if at all, differing from 
drt (see Fritz. Rom. i. 19, Vol. 1. 57), it 
does not also appear to be interchangeable 
with ydp, but always to retain some trace 
of its proper causal force; comp. notes 
on 1 Thess. ii. 8. The reading is 
doubtful. The text is supported by 
CD°EJK; very many mss., Vv., and 
Ff., — and is perhaps to be preferred, as 
drt [Lachm. with ABD!FG; 5 mss.] 
seems more probably a correction of the 
longer did71, than the reverse. 

ov StkatwShoetat wT. A. ‘shall 
not be justified,’ ‘non justificabitur om- 
nis caro,’ Vulg.; Rom. iii. 20, comp. 
Psalm cexliii. 2, ob dixawShoera evdmiov 
gov mas (Gv: a somewhat expressive He- 
braism (see Ewald, Gr. p. 657), accord- 
ing to which od is to be closely associated 
with the verb, and the predication re- 
garded as comprehensively and em- 
phatically negative; non-justification is 


Cuap. IL. 17. 


GALATIANS. 


59 


“et dé Gntobvtes SixarwS#var ev Xpioto ebpeESnuev kai adtob 


predicated of all flesh; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 26. 1, p. 155, Vorst, de Hebraismis, p. 
519, Fritz. Rom, iii. 20, Vol. 1. p. 179, 
and comp. Thol. Beitriége, No. 14, p. 
79. The future is here ethical, 7. e. it 
indicates not so much mere futurity as 
moral possibility, — and with ov, some- 
thing that neither can nor will ever 
happen: see esp. Thiersch, de Pent. 111. 
11, p. 148 sq., where this and similar 
uses of the future are well illustrated; 
comp. Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377, 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 251. On 
the doctrinal distinctions in St. Paul’s 
Epp. between the pres., perf., and fut. 
of SixaiotcoSa: with wiatis, see Usteri, 
Lehrb. 1.1. 1, p. 90; compare Peile, 
Append. Vol. 11. note p. The order od 


dix. e& Epywy vou. (Rec.) is only found- 


in JK; mss.; Goth., al.; Theod. (1), 
al., and is rejected by all recent critics. 
17. «if S€] * But tf, in accordance 
with these premises of thine, assuming 
the truth of these thy retrogressive 
principles; gvAdAoyiCera: Ta eipnuéva, 
Theod. Cntovvtres] ‘queren- 
tes — inventi sumus ;’ nervosum antithe- 
ton, Beng. év Xpiate@] ‘in 
Christ; not ‘through Christ,’ (Peile), 
but ‘zm Christ,,—in mystical . union 
with him; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 
846, note. It is right to notice that this 
distinction between éy tia and 8:4 twos 
is strongly opposed by Fritz. (Opusc. p. 
184, note), and considered merely gram- 
matically, his objections deserve consid- 
eration; but here, as only too often 
(comp. Rom, Vol. 11. p. 82 sq.), he puts 
out of sight the theological meaning 
which appears regularly attached to év 
Xpicrg. In the present passage the 
meaning is practically the same, which- 
ever translation be adopted; but in the 
one the deep significance of the formula 
(union, fellowship, with Christ) is kept 
in view, in the other it is obscured and 


lost sight of; comp. notes on Eph. i. 3, 
ii, 6. edpéedsnmer! ‘were found 
to be, after all our seeking ;’ not either 
a Hebraism, or a periphrasis of the verb 
substantive (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 2). 
The verb edpiox. has always in the N. T. 
its proper force, and indicates not merely 
the existence of a thing, but the man- 
ifestation or acknowledgment of that 
existence ; ‘if we are found (deprehendi- 
rnur), in the eyes of God and men, to be 
sinners ;” comp. Matth. i. 18, Luke xvii. 
18, Acts viii. 40, Rom. vii. 10, al., and 
see esp. Winer, tz loc., and Gr. § 65. 8, 
p. 542. kat abrol] ‘ourselves 
also,’ as much as those whom we proudly 
regard only as Gentiles and sinners, 
apa] ‘ergone’? ‘are we to say, as we 
must on such premises?’ ironical and 
interrogative: — not &pa (Chrys., Ust. 
al.) ; for though in two out of the three 
passages in which dpa occurs (Luke xviii. 
8, Acts viii. 38) it anticipates a negative, 
and not as here, an affirmative answer, it 
must still be retained in the present case, 
as wh yévorro in St. Paul’s Epp. is never 
found except after a question, The par- 
ticle has here probably an troniecal force, 
‘are we to say pray,’ 2. e, in effect, ‘we 
are to say, I suppose,’ see Jelf, Gr. 873. 
2. Itis thus not for ap’ ob — at all times 
a very questionable position, as in most 
if not all of such cases, it will be found 
that there is a faint irony or politely as- 
sumed hesitation, which seems to have 
suggested the use of the dubitative dpa, 
even though it is obvious that an affirm- 
ative answer is fully expected. ‘The same 
may be said of ‘ne’ for ‘nonne:’ see esp. 
Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 11. 6, and ib. Tuscul. 
Disput. ti. 11, 26; compare Stalb. Plato, 
Rep. vu. 566 a. The original identity of 
dpa and dpa (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 180) 
is impugned (appy. with doubtful success) 
by Dunbar, Class. Museum, Vol. v. p. 102 
sq., see Shepherd, 7d. Vol. v. p. 470 8q. 


60 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 17, 18. 


18.2 


e | aoe, | \ e ‘ \ 4 
dpaptwrol, dpa Xpictos apaptias SudKovos; py yévorto. © ef 
yap & Katédvca TadTa Tdi oiKOdo“a, TapaBaTny éwavTov 


apaptias Sidnovos| ‘a minister of 
sin ;’ scil., in effect, a promoter, a fur- 
therer of it (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15), one 
engaged in its service ; aguapria being al- 
most personified, and, as its position sug- 
gests, emphatically echoing the preceding 
auaptwroi, — ‘of sin (not of righteous- 
ness), — of a dispensation which not only 
leaves us where we were before, but causes 
us, when we exclusively follow it, to be 
for this very reason accounted sinners?’ 
Ei 5€ S11 tov vduov Katadimdvtes 7H 
. TapdBacts 
[or rather, auaptia} rovro vevéuorat, eis 


XpiotgG mpoteAndrAvsapev... 


avtby 7 aitla xwphoet Toy SeamdtHny Xpic- 
tov, Theod.; comp. Chrys. in doe. The 
argument is in fact a reductio ad absur- 
dum : if seeking for justification in Christ 
is only to lead us to be accounted sinners, 
—not merely as being without law and 
in the light of Gentiles (Mey.), but as 
having wilfully neglected an appointed 
means of salvation, — then Christ, who 
was the cause of our neglecting it, must 
needs be, not only negatively but posi- 
tively, a minister of sin; see De Wette 


in loc, HH yévotro| ‘be tt not 


so, ‘far be it,’ ‘absit,’ Vulg., odes 

+) 
[propitius fuit; compare Matth. xvi. 22] 
Syr., ¢. e. in effect (esp. in a context hke 
the present), ‘God forbid,’ Auth. This 
expressive formula, though not uncom- 
mon in later writers (see exx. in Raphel, 
Annot. Vol. u. p. 249, compare Sturz. 
Dial, Maced. p. 204), only occurs in the 
N. T. in St. Paul’s Epp.; viz. Rom. iii. 
4, 6, 31, vi. 2, 15, vii. 7, 13, ix. 14, xi. 
1, 11, 1 Cor. vi. 15, Gal. iii. 21. In all 
these cases it is interjectional, and in all, 
except the last, rebuts (as Conyb. has 
remarked) an inference drawn from St. 
Paul's doctrine by an adversary. The 
nature of the inference makes the revul- 


_ciples really lies. 


sion of thought (raxéws &ronndg, Dam.) 
either more or less apparent, and will 
usually suggest the best mode of trans- 
lation. 

18. ei yap] ‘For ¢f;’ direct con- 
firmation of the immediately preceding 
bh yévorro (Usteri, Lehrb. m1. 1. 2, p. 
162, note), and indirect and allusive ex- 
pansion of the eipéSnuev Guaptwrol: ‘1 
say wh yévorro in ref. to Christ, for it is 
not in seeking to be justified in Him, but 
in seeking to rebuild the same structure 
that I have destroyed (though nobler 
materials now lie around) that my sin, 
my transgression of the law’s own prin- — 
In the change to the 
Jirst person sing. there may be a delicate 
application to St. Peter personally, which 
‘clementize causa’ is expressed in this 
rather than in the second person (Alf., 
Mey.); it must not be forgotten, how- 
ever, that the fervor as well as the intro- 
spective character of St. Paul’s writings 
leads him frequently to adopt this uer- 
acxnpatiouds eis Eavtdy, see esp. Rom, 
vii. 7 sq.; so also 1 Cor. iii. 5 sq. iv. 3 
sq. vi. 12, x. 29, 30, xiii. 11, 12, ete.: 
comp. Knapp, Seripta Var. Argum. No. 
12, p. 431, 437. 
—and nothing better in their place,’ 
Meyer. The emphasis rests on raira, 
not on éeuavrdv (Olsh.), the position of 
which [apaB. éuavrdv, not euavt. rapa. | 
shows it clearly to be unemphatic. 
mapaBat ny! ‘a transgressor,’ scil. Tod 
vopov ; Lizoas Meat pos [trans- 
gressor mandati] Syr. But in what 
particular manner? Surely not, ‘in 
having formerly neglected what I now 
reassert’ (De W., Alf.), — a somewhat 
weak and anticlimactic reference to 
cipéInuev &uaptwAot,— but, as the 
following ydp, and the unfolding argu- 


Tad7 a] ‘these 


Cnap. II. 18, 19. 


GALATIANS. 


61 


, S rp p' Fs \ i a 
cuvictavo. ” éyo yap dua vouwouv vouw atréSavov iva Oe bijou. 


ment seem clearly to require, ‘in recon- 
structing what I ought to perceive is 
only temporary and preparative. Re- 
construction of the same materials is, 
in respect of the law, not only a tacit 
avowal of an auaptia (edpéd. auapt.) in 
having pulled it down, but is a real 
and definite mapdBacis of all its deeper 
principles. So, very distinctly, Chrys., 
éxeivor Seitac éBovAovto, tt 6 wy THpa@v 
Tov vouoy mapaBarns ovTos eis TovvayTiov 
mepietpee Tov Adyov, Seixvds Sri 6 tHpav 
Tov vduov, tmapaBdrns, ov THs TioTEws 
The 
counter-argument that the J of ver, 18 
has ‘given up’ faith in Christ, and so 
could never consider the law as prepara- 
tive (Alf.), is of no real force; for in 
the first place the éy& had not given it 
up, but had only added to it, and in 
the next place, even had he done so, 
he might equally show himself a real 
though unconscious rapaBdrnv. 
éu“autoy cuviatdva| ‘set myself 
forward, ‘demonstrate myself to be:’ 
Hesych. cumordvew: émaveiv, pave- 
povv, BeBaodv, maparidévai. This mean- 
ing, ‘sinceris Atticis ignotum,’ Fritz, 
Rom. iii. 5, Vol. 1. p. 159), deduces 
from the primary notion componendi ; 
‘ut esset cvviornul tt, compositis collec- 
tisque que rem contineant argumentis 
aliquid doceo :’ see exx. in Wetst. Rom. 
iii. 5, Schweigh. Lex. Polyb.s.v. The 
form guvicornu (Rec.), only found in 
D3(EH?)JK; mss. and Ff, seems a mere 
grammatical gloss, 


GAAG Kal adtod tod vduov. 


19. éy® yap] ‘For I truly? ex- 
planatory confirmation of the preceding 
assertion; the explicative yap showing 
how this rehabilitation of the law actually 
amounts to a transgression of its true 
principles, while the emphatic éyd adds 
the force and vitality of personal experi- 
ence. In the retrospective reference of 
mapapdrns adopted by De W. and Alf. 


(see above), the yap loses all its force; it 
must either be referred, most awkwardly, 
to uh yéevoto (D. W.), or, still worse, be 
regarded as merely transitional, 

51a vémov véuw arédSavor, ‘through 
the law died to the law.’ Of the many 
explanations of these obscure words the 
following (derived mainly from Chrys. ) 
appears by far the most tenable. and 
satisfactory. The result may be summed 
up in the following positions : — (1) Né- 
pos in each case has the same meaning. 
(2) That meaning, as the context re- 
quires, must be the Mosaic law (ver. 
16), no grammatical arguments founded 
on the absence of the article (Middleton 
in loc ) having any real validity ; comp. 
exx, in Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 112. (3) 
The law is regarded under the same 
aspect as in Rom vii. 6—13, a passage in 
strictest analogy with the present. (4) 
Aa vduov must not be confounded with 
dia vduorv Or kata vouoy; it was through 
the instrumentality of the law (dd 7. 
évroAjs, Rom. vii. 8) that the sinful 
principle worked within and brought 
death upon all. (5) ’AréSavoyv is not 
merely ‘legi valedixi’ (comp. karnpyh- 
Snv ard Tov vduov), but expresses gener- 
ally what is afterwards more specifically 
expressed in ver. 20 by cuveotatpwuat. 
(6) Néuw is not merely the dative ‘of 
reference to,’ but a species of dative 
‘commodi;’ the expressions (jv Ti and 
&émudav tim having a wide application ; 
see Fritz. Rom. xiv. 7, Vol. m1. p. 176; 
—‘I died not only as concerns the law, 
but as the law required.’ The 
whole clause then may thus be para- 
phrased: ‘J, through the law, owing to 
sin, was brought under its curse; but 
having undergone this, with, and in the 
person of Christ (ch. iii. 13, compare 2 
Cor. v. 14), I died to the Jaw in the full- 
est and deepest sense, — being both free 
from its claims, and having satisfied its 


62 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IT. 19, 20. 


» XpioTd cuvectavpwopar 6H Sé ovKérs eyo, bp Sé ev ewot Xprc- 


/ 
TOS. 


curse.’ The difference between this and 
the common interpretations lies princi- 
pally in the fuller meaning assigned to 
amréSavoy, and its reference to guveor. 
A careful investigation will be found in 
Usteri, Lehrd. 1. 1. 2, p. 164 sq. 
¢how| ‘may live,’ not a future (Alf.), 
— an anomalous usage (see notes on ver. 
4) that it is surely unnecessary to ob- 
trude on the present passage — but the 
regular aor. subj. (1 Thess. v. 10), the 
tense of the dependent clause being in 
idiomatic accordance with that of the 
leading member; compare Schmalfeld, 
Syné. § 144. 1, p. 296. 

20. Xptar@ cvvecrt. ‘I have been 
and am crucified with Christ ;’ more 
exact specification of the preceding aé- 
Savov. This cvveoradp. it need scarcely 
be said, did not consist merely in the 
crucifixion of the lusts (ch, v. 24, Grot.), 
but in that union with Christ according 
to which the believer shares the death 
of his crucified Lord; éreiin evra Ban- 
tiowatt Tov Te Savdtrov Kal THs dvao- 
TdcEws TUMOY éenAHpovy, TvaTavpovcsat 
éAéyovto t@ XpiotG, Theod. Mops. in 
loc. (@ 5é obKwéts eyo] ‘I 
live however no longer myself,’ ¢. e. my 
old self; see Rom. vi. 6, and compare 
Neand. Plant., Vol. 1. p. 422 (Bohn). 
The familiar but erroneous punctuation 
of this clause ((@ 8é, obméts eyd, GH BE 
k. T. A.) has been rightly rejected by all 
recent editors except Scholz. The only 
passing difficulty is in the use of 5: it 
does not simply continue (Riick., Peile), 
or expand (Ust.) the meaning of Xp. 
cuveot. but reverts with its proper ad- 
versative force to tva Oecd Chow, cvveor., 
being not so much a link in the chain 
of thought, as a rapid and almost paren- 
thetical epexegesis of améSavor. 

(4 8%] The 6é does not introduce any 


A \ a mn > U >’ / lal fol fal eS n lol 
0 dé viv CH év capKi, ev Tiater [& TH TOV viov Tod Oeod, 


opposition to the preceding negative 
clause (it would then be dAad), but 
simply marks the emphatic repetition 
of the same verb (Hartung, Partik. dé, 
2. 17, Vol. 1. p. 168), just retaining, 
however, that swb-adversative force 
which is so common when a clause is 
added, expressing a new, though not 
a dissimilar thought; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. mu. p. 361. On the doctrinal 
import of (7 év éuol Xp. (‘Christ and 
His Spirit dwelling in them, and as the 
soul of their souls moving them unto 
such both inward and outward actions, 
as in the sight of God are acceptable’), 
see Hooker, Serm. 111. 1, Vol. m1. p. 764 
sq. (ed. Keble.) & St viv (A) 
‘yes, the life which now I live ;’ explan- 
atory and partially concessive clause, 
obviating the possible objection arising 
from the seeming incompatibility of the 
assertion (7 év éuol Xp. with the fact 
of the actual (iv év capki: ‘it is true,’ 
says the Apostle, ‘Ido yet live in the 
flesh, an earthly atmosphere is. still 
around me, bué even thus I live and 
breathe in the pure element of faith, 
— faith in him who loved me, yea and 
(xat) gave such proofs of his love.’ 

With regard to the construction it is 
only necessary to observe that 8 is not 
‘quod attinet ad id quod’ (Winer), but 
simply the accus. objecti after (@, scil. 
Thy 5& Cwhv hv viv (: comp. Rom. vi. 
10, d yap aréSave, and see Fritz. in Joc., 
Vol. 1. p. 393. dé is thus not 
merely continuative (De W.), but serves 
both to limit and explain the preceding 
words (comp. 1 Cor. i. 16, and Winer, 
Gr. § 53. 7. b, p. 393), its true opposi- 
tive force being sufficiently clear when 
the suppressed thought (see below) is 
properly supplied; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 366. viv] The refer- 





Caap. IL. 20, 21. 


GALATIANS. 


63 


a 2? , , \ $4 e \ @2 20K > A 31.2 
TOV GYATNOAVTOS PE KAL TT QApaoovTos €avTov UTEP ELOV. OUK 


aSeT@ THv Ydpw ToD Ocod- 
Xpicros Swpedv améSavev. 


ence of this particle is doubtful. It may 
specify the period since the Apostle’s 
conversion, but is much more plausibly 
referred by Chrys., Theod., al. to the 
present life in the flesh, ‘ hec vita mea 
terrestris ;’ see Phil. i. 22. In the 
former case the qualitative and tacitly 
contrasting év capx} (‘ earthly existence,’ 
‘life in the phenomenal world,’ aicSynr} 
(wh, Chrys.; comp. Miiller, on Sin, Vol. 
1. p. 453, Clark) would seem wholly 
superfluous. év wiaorei| ‘in 
faith” The instrumental sense, ‘dy 
faith,’ adopted by Theodoret, and seve- 
ral ancient as well as modern expositors, 
is, though inexact, not grammatically 
untenable. The deeper meaning of the 
words is, however, thus completely lost. 
On this ‘7ife in faith’ see the middle 
and latter portion of a profound paper, 
‘Bemerk. zum Begriffe der Religion,’ 
by Lechler, Stud. wu. Kritik. for 1851, 
Part rv. TH Tod viod Tob 
© cod] ‘namely that of the Son of God,’ 
distinctive, and with solemn emphasis, 
—the insertion of the article serving 
both to specify and enhance, ‘in fide, 
eAque Filii dei’ (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 
13, and on 2 Tim. i. 13), while the 
august title, by intimating the true 
fountain of life (John v. 26) tends to 
add confirmation and assurance; érav 
mepl Tod Tiod voeiv eSéAns, uadav Tiva 
éotl Ta ev TG Matpl tadta Kad ev TH Tis 
eivat wioteve, Athan. on Matth. xi. 27, 
Vol. 1. p. 153, (ed. Bened.). The 
reading of Lachm. rH Tod Seod Kal 
Xpictod, Tod ay. is supported by BD'FG ; 
Clarom., — but. has every appearance of 
being a gloss; see Meyer (critical notes), 
p- 29. kal mapaddvros K.T.A.] 
‘and (as a proof of his love) gave Him- 
self,’ etc.; the xa) being é&yyntixdy, and 


yap Sia vopov Sixatocivn, dpa 


illustratively subjoining the practical 
proof; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. 1. 
p- 339, and on this and other uses of 
kal, notes on Phil. iv. 12. bmwéep 
é€uod]| ‘for me, *pro me,’ Vulg.; to 
atone for me and to save me. On the 
dogmatical meaning of this prep., see 
notes on ch. iii. 13, 

21. ob}k &SeErG] ‘I do not make 
void,’ ‘nullify ;’ not ‘ abjicio,’ Vulg., still 
less &riud(w, Theod., — but ‘non irratam 
facio,’ scil. ‘ut dicam per legem esse 
justitiam,’ Aug.: compare 1 Cor. i. 19, 
Thy obveow Tav ovveTav aSeTHTw; Ch. 
ili. 15, aSere? (Siadhenv); so 1 Mace. 
xv. 27, ASéTHGE TdyTaA boa TUVESETO AUTH; 
and frequently in Polyb., see Schweigh. 
Lex. s. v. The verb is sometimes found 
in the milder sense of ‘ despising,’ ‘ re- 
jecting.’ etc. — with persons (Luke x, 
16, John xii. 48, 1 Thess. iv. 8); but 
this obviously falls short of the meaning 
in the present context. THY 
xdptv Tod O¢od| ‘the grace of God,’ 
as shown in the death of Christ, and 
our justification by faith in Him; not 
‘the Gospel,’ as Hamm. on Heb. xiii, 9. 
In our justification, as it is well said 
in the Homilies, there are three things 
which go together, —on God’s part His 
grace and mercy; upon Christ’s part 
the satisfaction of God’s justice; and 
upon our part true and lively faith in 
the merits of Jesus Christ, on Salvat. 
Part r. yap explains and jus- 
tifies the preceding declaration; ‘I say 
ovx &SerG, for it is an immediate in- 
ference that if the law could have been 
the medium of S:xaoc., Christ’s death 
would have been purposeless.’ 
51a vdépmov] ‘by means of the- law,’ as 
a medium of S:kaoodvn: emphatic, as 
the position shows, and antithetical to 


64 


O foolish Galatians, is not 
the Spirit which ye have 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. II. 21—III. 1. 


TIL. *2 avonro Tarata, tis tas éBae- 


received an evidence that justification is by faith, and not by the works of the law? 
a 


Xpiords in the succeeding clause. In the 
present verse it is in effect asserted that 
the véuos is not a medium of duxcaoodvn 
(eis ktiow Sixaociyvns apxet, Theod.) ; 
in ch. iii. 11, it is asserted not to be the 
sphere of it, and in ch. iii. 21, not the 
origin. Sixatogvuyn] ‘right- 


> 
eousness,” | Zale? | Syr., ‘justitia,’ 
Q x4 


Vulg.; not equivalent to SiKalwors 
(Whately, Dangers, etc., § 4) nor yet, 
strictly considered, the result of it, but 
appy. in the most inclusive meaning of 
the term — righteousness, whether im- 
puted, by which we are accounted 8i- 
xatot, or infused and inherent, by which 
we could be found so; see Hooker, Serm. 
ul. 8, 21, where the distinction between 
justifying and sanctifying righteousness 
is drawn out with admirable perspicuity. 
On the meaning of the word, see An- 
drewes, Serm. v. Vol. v. p 114 (A.C. L.), 
Waterland, Justif. Vol. vt. p. 4, and for 
some acute remarks on its lexical as- 
pects, Knox, Remains, Vol. 1. p. 276. 
tipa| ‘then,’ t. e. the obvious inference 
is.” On the meaning of dpa, see notes, 
ch. v. 11. Swpedy] ‘for nought, 
without cause ;’ not here ‘frustra’ (Grot.), 
‘sine effectu,’— but ‘sine justd causa,’ 
Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 161; mwepirtds 6 Tod 
Xpictod Sdvaros, Chrys., ‘ superflue mor- 
tuus est Chr.,’ Jerome: comp. John xv. 
25, éulonody we Swpedv; Psalm xxxiv. 
(xxxv.) 7, Swpedy Expupdy por Stapdopdv 
(Symm. dvariws). So cam, which the 
LXX frequently translate by dwpedv, has 
the meaning ‘in nullum bonum finem,’ 
as well as ‘gratis’ and ‘frustra:’ comp. 
Gesen. Lez. s. v., Vorst, de Hebraism. 
vu. 6, p. 228, 229. 


Cuapter IID. 1. &vdnroe Taa.] 
‘ foolish Galatians ;’ fervid and indig- 
nant application of the results of the 


preceding demonstration to the case of 
his readers. The epithet avdnros is used 
in three other passages by St. Paul, — 
Rom. i. 14, opp. to copés; 1 Tim. vi. 
9, joined with BAaBepds ; Tit. iii, 3, with 
areShs and mAavdéuevos,— and in all 
seems to mark not so much a dulness in 
(‘insensati,’ Vulg.), as a deficiency in, 
or rather an insufficient application of, 
Ve 
the voids ; comp. Syr. ave) 4 pela 
[destituti mente], and Luke xxiv. 14, 
where while Bpadts 7H Kapdig denotes 
the defect in heart, avdnros seems to 
mark the defect in head; comp. Tittm. 
Synon.1 p. 144, where this word is de- 
fined somewhat artificially, but rightly 
distinguished from &ppwyv and édotveros 
which seem to point respectively rather 
to ‘senselessness’ and ‘slowness of under- 
standing.’ It cannot then be as- 
serted (Brown) that the Galatians were 
proverbially stupid ; compare Callim. H, 
Del. 184, &ppom giaw. Themistius, 
who himself spent some time in the 
(then extended Forbig. Geogr. Vol. 1. 
p- 364) province, gives a very different 
character: of 5¢ &vdpes Yore btt dkets Kad 
ayxivor Kai eiparéorepor tev Byav “EAAH- 
vov' Kal tpiBwviov tapapavévtos éxxpé- 
pavt. evavs, domep Tis AlXov Ta c1dhpia, 
Orat. 23, ad fin. p. 299 (ed. Harduin). 
Versatility and inconstancy, as the Epis- 
tle shows (comp. notes on ch. i. 6), were 
the true characteristics of the Galatian, 
Foolishness must have been often, as in 
the present case, not an unnatural con- 
comitant. bmas é€Bdonaver| 
‘did bewitch you,’ ‘ fascinavit vos,’ Vulg , 
Clarom. The verb Bacxatvw is derived 
from Bd(w, Bdonw (Pott. Etym. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 271), and perhaps signified 
originally ‘malA lingua nocere;’ comp. 
Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. u. p. 104. Here, 
however, the reference appears rather to 


Cuap. III. 1, 2. 


GALATIANS. 


65 


kavev, ols kat odSarpods “Incots Xpuoctos mpoeypddn év 
Upiv éotavpwpévos; * TovTo povoy Yérw pareivy ap wav, é& 


the bewitching influence of the evil eye 
(compare Ecclus. xiv. 8, Backalvwy dp- 
Sadue, and see Elsner, tm Joc., Winer, 
RWB, Art. ‘Zauberei’) though not 
necessarily ‘ the evil eye of envy,’( Chrys. ; 


comp. Syr. Sq.g24_) as in this latter sense 
wie 


Back. is commonly with a dat. (but in 
Ecclus. xiv. 6, Ignat. Rom. 3, with 
accus.); see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 462, 
Pierson, Herodian, p. 470. The 
addition, tH GAndeia wh melSecSa [ Rec. 
with CD°E2JK ; mss.; Vulg. (but not 
all mss.), Aith.-Pol., al.; Ath, Theod.}, 
is rightly rejected by most modern edi- 
tors, both as deficient in external author- 
ity {omitted in ABDIEIFG; 2 mss. ; 
Syr., and nearly all Vv.j, and as an 
apparent gloss from ch. v. 7. 

mpoeypapn| ‘was openly set forth,’ 
‘proscriptus est,’ Vulg., Clarom. The 
meaning of this word has been much 
discussed. The ancient (comp. Syr.) 
and popular gloss is é(wypaphdn (The- 
oph., GEcum., and appy. Chrys., Theod.), 
but without any lexical authority: for 
common as is the use of ypdpw in a pic- 
torial sense, there appears no certain in- 
stance of wr po ypdw being ever so used ; 
see Rettig, Stud. uw. Krit. 1830, p. 96 sq. 
We can then only safely translate mpoe- 
ypdon either (a) ‘antea scriptus est,’ or 
(8) ‘palam scriptus est.’ Between these 
it is difficult to decide. Considered lex- 
ically (a) seems the most probable; for 
though (8) is appy. the more common 
meaning in Hellenic writers (Plutarch, 
Camill. § 11, comp. Polyb. Hist. xxxm. 
21. 12, al.), yet in the three other pas- 
sages in the N. T. in which mpoypddw 
occurs, viz., Rom. xv. 4, Eph. iii. 3, 
Jude 4, it is used in the former sense. 
Both meanings occur in the LXX: (a) 
in 1 Esdr, vi. 32 (Ald. * (8) in 1 Mace. 

9 


x. 36. Contextual considerations seem, 
however, in favor of (8); as not only 
does this meaning harmonize best with 
the prominent and purely local xar’ 
dpSadpobs (compare kar’ buuata, Soph. 
Antig. 756), but also best illustrate the 
peculiar and suggestive éS8doxavev, — 
which thus gains great force and point ; 
‘who could have bewitched you by his 
gaze, when you had only to fix your 
eyes on Christ to escape the fascination ;’ 
comp. Numb. xxi. 9. év butv] 
‘among you ;’ not a Hebraistic pleonasm 
(‘construi debet év ofs syiv,’ Grot.), but 
a regular local predicate appended to mpoe- 
ypdpn, and appy. intended to enhance 
the preceding ofs kat’ 6p3. by a still 
more studied specification of place: not 
only had the truth been presented to 
them, but preached among them, with 
every circumstance of individual and 
local exhibition. According to the usual 
connection éy juiy is joined with éoravp. 
(comp. Chrys.), but in that case both 
perspicuity and emphasis would have 
required the order éotaup. év buiv, while 
in the present the isolation of éoravp. is 
in accordance with the natural order, 
and adds greatly to the pathos and em- 
phasis; see 1 Cor. i. 23, and compare 1 
Cor. ii. 2. On the force of the perf- 
part. as implying the permanent charac- 
ter of the action, see Winer, Gr. § 45. 
1, p. 305, Green, Gr. p 308. It 
may be observed that Lachm. (Griesb. 
om. om.) omits év iuiv with ABC; 10 
mss.; Amit., Tol., Syr., al., — but with 
but little probability, as the omission of 
such a seemingly superfluous clause can 
easily be accounted for, but not the 
insertion. 

2. rodto pédvor] ‘this only,’ —not 
to mention other arguments which might 
be derived from your own admissions; 


66 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. III. 2, 3. 


pyr vouou 76 IIvetpa éraBerte i) €& axors miatews; * oUTWS avonTot 


‘de eo quod promptum est sciscitor,’ 
Jerome. pasxety ap tuer; 
‘to learn of you,’ Auth. Ver.; not for 
mapa suav (Riick.) which would imply 
a more immediate and direct communi- 
cation, but with the proper force of amd, 
which, as a general rule (Col. i, 7, seems 
an exception), indicates a source less ac- 
tive and more remote; contrast 2 Tim. 
iii. 14, and see Winer, Gr. § 47, dé, p. 
331 note; comp. notes also on ch. i, 12. 
For exx. of this use of wase?y, not ‘to 
learn as a disciple,’ with an ironical 
reference (Luth., Beng.), but simply ‘to 
arrive at a knowledge,’ see exx. in Rost 
u. Palm, Lez. s. v., and compare Acts 
Xxiil; 27. Td Iivedpual ‘the 
Spirit,’ thy rocabrny ioxdbv, Chrys.; ‘de 
Spiritu miraculorum loqui hie apostolum 
patet,” Bull, Harm. Ap. Part m. 11. 8. 
Is it not, however, necessary to under- 
stand this as the exclusive meaning, 
much less to explain it, with Baur, 
Apost. Paulus, p. 515, as ‘das Christ- 
liche Bewusstseyn :’ see next verse. 

&kojs mlorews may be translated, 
either (a) ‘the hearing of faith,’ i. e. the 
reception of the Gospel (Brown), or (8) 
‘ the report or message of faith,’ ¢, e. the 
preaching which related to, had as its 
subject mioris (gen. objecti), according 
as doy is taken in an active or passive 
sense. The former might seem to pre- 
serve a better antithesis to pywy vduou; 
— ‘hearing the doctrine of faith, opp. 
to doing the works of the law’ (Schott, 
Peile; comp. Ath.), but is open to the 
decided /exical objection that ao} ap- 
pears always used in the N, T. in a pas- 
sive sense (so both in Rom. x. 17 [see 
Fritz j, and in 1 Thess, ii. 13, where see 
notes), and to the contextual objection 
that the real opposition is not between 
the doing and the hearing, but between 
the two principles, faith and the law, — 
the question in effect being, 6 véuos tiv 


Zwrev Tod Selov TMvedmatos évepyeay, 7) 
pdvn % €m tov Kupioy miotts, Theod. We 
may, then, with some confidence, adopt 
(8) ; so Goth. (‘gahauseins’), Arm., and 
recently De Wette, Meyer, and the best 
modern commentators. ) 

3. of rws avdnrotl ‘to 80 high a 
degree, so very foolish,’— with reference 
to what follows: ‘quum of7ws cum ad- 
jectivo nomini aut adverbio copulatur, 
reddes non solum ‘ita,’ ‘adeo,’ verum 
etiam ‘usque adeo,’’ Steph. Thesaur. 
s. v. Vol. v. p. 2433, where several exx. 
are cited; e. g. Isoc. Paneg. 43 D, oftw 
peydAas, Xen. Cyr. 11. 216, oftw moré- 
pov. évaptdmevot] ‘after 
having begun ;’ temporal participle re- 
ferring to the previous fact of their first 
entrance into Christian life, On the 
temporal force of the participle, see notes 
on Eph. iv. 8, but reverse the accident- 
ally transposed ‘subsequent to’ and 
‘preceding ;? and on the force of the 
compound (more directly concentrated 
action), see notes on Phit. i. 6. 
Tvetpari] ‘with the Spirit ;’ dat. of 
the manner (modal dat.) in which the 
action took place; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 
6, p. 1938, Bernhardy, Synt. m1. 14, p. 
100, Jelf, Gr. § 603 The meaning of 
mvedua and odpt in this verse has been 
the subject of considerable discussion, 
Of the earlier expositors, Theodoret par- 
aphrases av. by 4 xdpis, capt by # xara 
véuov morrtela (so Waterl. Distinct. of 
Sacr. 1. § 10, Vol. v. p. 262), while 
Chrys. finds in odp~ a definite allusion 
to the circumcision; comp. Eph. ii. 11. 
Alii alia. The most satisfactory view 
is that taken by Miiller, Doct. of Sin, 
ch. 2, Vol. 1. 355 sq. (Clark), — viz., 
that when rvedua is thus in ethical con- 
trast with odpé, it is to be understood of 
the Holy Spirit, regarded as the govern- 
ing and directing principle in man, odpé, 
on the contrary, as the worldly tendency 


Cuap. III. 3, 4: 


GALATIANS. 


67 


? ae ae , , a A 
éote; évapEdwevor IIvevpats viv capki émitedcioSe; * trocaira 


of human life, ‘the life and movement 
of man in things of the phenomenal 
world.’ If this be correct wy. and odpt 
are here used, not to denote Christianity 
and Judaism per se, but as it were the 
essence and active principle of each. 
émiterd cio del ‘are ye brought to com- 
pletion?’ Not middle, as often in Hel- 
lenic Greek (see Schweigh. Lex. Polyd. 
8. v.), but pass. (Vulg., Clarom., Chrys.), 
as in 1 Pet. v. 9, comp. Phil. i. 6. The 
meaning of the compound must not be 
neglected; it does not merely imply 
‘finishing’ (Ust., Peile), as opposed to 
‘beginning,’ but appears always to in- 
volve the idea of bringing to a complete 
and perfect end; comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, 
%ptouat nal emiteAcow; see further exx. 
in Bretsch. Lez. s. v., and the good col- 
lection in Rost u. Palm. Lex. s. v. Vol. 
I. p. 1123, — the most definite of which 
seems, Herod. 1x. 64, 9 dixn Tod pdvou éx 
Mapdoviov éwered€eTo. 


4. éwdSere| ‘Did ye suffer,’ ‘passi 


gece y > ; v 
estis,’ Vulg., Clarom., & <jSan [sus- 


tinuistis] Syr., 2th, (both). The mean- 
ing of this word has been much discussed. 
The apparent tenor of the argument, as 
alluding rather to benefits than to suf- 
ferings, has led Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
277, compare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 
731) and others to endeavor to substan- 
tiate by exx. that mdoyxew is not only a 
word of neutral meaning, but, even 
without ¢d or &yaSdy, actually signifies 
‘ beneficiis affici,, — a usage, however, of 
which Steph. ( Thes. s. v.) rightly says 
‘exemplum desidero.’. For the neutral 
meaning (‘experienced,’ ed. 1), as in- 
cluding a reference to all the spiritual 
dispensations, whether sufferings or 
blessings, which had happened to 
(Arm.), or had been vouchsafed to the 
Galatians, much may be said, both 
lexically and contextually, — still, on 


the one hand, the absence of any direct 
instance in the N. T. [even in Mark y. 
26, there is an idea of suffering in the 
background], and, on the other, the 
authority of the ancient Vv. and Greek 
expositors lead us now to revert to the 
regular meaning, swffered, and to refer 
it to the labors (Copt.), and persecutions 
which, in one form or other, must have 
certainly tried the early converts of Ga- 
latia; see Chrys., Jerome, and the good 
note of Alford im loc. All these suffer- 
ings were a genuine evidence of the évapé- 
duevot Tvedpati, and would be regarded 
and alluded to by the Apostle as blessed 
tokens of the Spirit’s influence; comp. 
1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., and the remarks of 
August. in h. 1. efye kal eixG] 
‘if indeed,’ or, ‘if at least, it really be in 
vain.’ The sense of this clause has been 
obscured by not attending to the true 
force of efye and kal. eye 
must not be confounded with efrep 
(Tholuck, Bettrdge, p. 146): the latter, 
in accordance with the extensive, or 
perhaps rather intensive force of ep 
(Donalds. Crat. § 178, compare Klotz. 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 723), implies ‘st om- 
nino ;’ the former (efye), in accordance 
with the restrictive yé, is ‘s¢ quidem,’ 
and if resolved, tum certe, si; (‘ve ita 
tantummodo ad tollendam conditionem 
facit, quia tum certe, st quid fiat, aliud 
esse significat, non ut ipsam conditionem 
confirmet,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 308), 
comp. p. 528. No inference, however, 
of the Apostle’s real opinion can be 
drawn merely from the ye (eye ‘usur- 
patur de re que jure sumpta,’ Herm. 
Vig. No. 310), as it is the sentence and 
not the particle which determines the 
rectitude of the assumption. 

xa) must closely be joined with eixj, 
and either (a), with its usual ascensive 
force (‘quasi ascensionem ad eam rem 
quo pertineat particula;’ Klotz, Devar. 


68 


b] / 7 A v7 \ >, A 
ETANETE ELK); EL YE Kal EiKh. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. III. 5, 6. 


ae tet + aA eon \ a 
0 ovv erriyopnyov viv TO IIvetwa 


a n 4 ? ec a ’ ” / a> 2 vn fol / 
Kal évepyav Suvapers ev viv, €€ Epywv vouou % €& Axons TicTtews ; 


As Abraham was justified 
by faith; so shall his spir- 
itual children be justified, and share his blessing. 
Vol. wu. p. 638), gives to the clause the 
meaning, ‘if at least it amount to, 2. e. 
be really in vain,’ or (2), with what may 
be termed its descensive force (Odyss. 1. 
58, see Hartung, Partik. nai, § 2. 8, 
Vol. 1. p. 136), serves to imply, ‘if at 
least it be only in vain, ¢.e. has not 
proceeded to a more dangerous length, 
‘videndum ne ad perniciem valeat,’ 
August., Cocceius. Of these (4) is the 
most emphatic and pungent (so Mey.; 
De W.), but (a) most characteristic of 
the large heart of the Apostle, and of 
the spirit of love and tenderness to his 
converts (ch. iv. 19), which is blended 
even with the rebukes of this Epistle ; 
so Chrys., and the Greek expositors ; 
comp. Brown, p. 112. 

5. 6 otv émixopnyay] ‘He then 
who is bestowing,’ etc.: resumption by 
means of the reflexive ody (see below, 
and notes on Phil. ii. 1) of the subject 
of ver. 2; ver. 3 and 4 being in effect 
parenthetical The subject of this verse 
is not St. Paul (Lomb. Erasm., al ), but, 
as the context, the meaning of dSuvduets, 
the nature of the action specified (ém- 
xopnyav), and the permanence of the 
action implied by the tense pres. ém:xo- 
pnyev (comp. Winer, Gr. § 45.1, p. 304, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 202, p. 405), all 
obviously suggest, — God: 6 @eds, pnow, 
6 émtxopnyav duly 7d Tyvedua, Theoph. 
The force of ém) in ém:xsp. does not ap- 
pear additive, but directive (see Rost u. 
Palm, Lez. s. v., and 2b. s. v. érft, C. 3. 
cc), any idea of the freedom or ample 
nature of the gift (Winer, Peile), being 
due solely to the primary meaning of 
the simple verb; see notes on Col. ii. 19, 
and compare 2 Cor. ix. 10, where both 
xopnyew and émyopnyéw occur in the 
same verse, and appy. in the same sense 


° KaSas ’ABpadp éristevoey TH Oc@, Kai 


quantitatively considered. For exx. of 
the use of émxop. in later writers see 
the collection of Hase, in Steph. Thes, 
s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1902. On the 
present resumptive use of ody after a 
(logical) parenthesis, which has been 
incorrectly pronounced rare in Attic 
writers, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
718, Hartung, Partik. ody, 3. 5, Vol. 
u. p. 22. It may be remarked that, as 
a general rule, od» is continuative and 
retrospective rather than illative, and is 
in this respect to be distinguished from 
tpa (Donalds. Gr. § 604), but it must 
not also be forgotten that as in the New 
Testament the use of ody is to that of 
%pa nearly as 11 to 1, the force of the 
former particle must not be unduly re- 
stricted. In St. Paul’s Epp. where the 
proportion is not quite 4 to 1, the true 
distinction between the two particles 
may be more safely maintained; see, 
however, notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1 ( Trans.) 
Svvapmers] ‘miraculous powers,’ Haan 
[virtutes] Syr., ‘virtutes,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom. This more restricted meaning, 
which may be supported by 1 Cor. xii. 
28, and probably Matth xiv. 2, seems 
best to accord with the context. Kai is 
then é&yynrixdv, and éy dpiy retains its 
natural meaning with évepyéw, ‘in you,’ 
‘within you ;’ comp. Matth, 7. e. ai duvd- 
pets evepyovow ev abt. E ép- 
yav vépuov] ‘from the works of the 
law ;’ not exactly ‘as following upon,’ 
Alf. 2,— but, in more strict accordance 
with the primary force of the prep. 
‘from.’ ‘out of’ (‘ex,’ Vulg.), as the 
originating or moving cause of the 
emxophynois ; compare notes on Gal, 
ii. 16, 


6. eadeés] * Even as.’ The answer 


Cnap. III. 6, 7. 
eLoyicSn avTa eis Sixatoovvnv. 


is so obvious, that St. Paul proceeds as 
if it had been expressed. The com- 
pound particle caSas is not found in the 
purer Attic writers, though sufficiently 
common in later writers; see exx. col- 
lected by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 426. Em. 
Moschop., the Byzantine Grammarian, 
cited by Fabricius, Bibl. Greca, Vol. 
vi. p. 191 (ed. Harles), remarks that 
this is an Alexandrian usage; 7d kada& 
ot ’Attixol xpa@vra, Td SE Kadads ovdé- 
mote, GAN’ H Tv Arckavipéwy SiddexTos 
Kay’ hv 7 Sela ypaph yéyparra:: see esp. 
Sturz de Dialecto Maced. $9, s. v. (Steph. 
Thes. ed. Valpy, p. clxx.) On the most 
suitable translation, compare notes on 
1 Thess. i. 5 ( Transl.). éX0- 
yiodsn ate ets Bikaroctrny|] 
‘it was accounted for to him,’ or ‘was 
reckoned to him, as righteousness,’ scil. 
7d motedoa; see Winer, Gr. § 49. 2, 
p. 427 (ed 5). The phrase Aoylerat re 
eis t1, Acts xix. 27, Rom. ii. 26, iv. 3, 
ix. 8, is explained by Fritzsche (Rom. 
Vol. 1. p. 137), as equivalent to AoytCerat 
mt eis Td elval Ti, ‘ita res eestimatur ut 
res sit,’ h. e. ‘ut pro re valeat ;’ hence 
‘tribuitur alicui rei vis ac pondus rei.’ 
In such cases, the more exact idea con- 
veyed by eis, of destination for any 
object or thing (Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. 
v. eis, v. 1), is blended with that of sim- 
ple predication of it. In later writers 
this extended so far that eis, is often 
used as a mere index of the accus., hav- 
ing lost all its prepositional force; e. g. 
Gyew cis yuvaika: see Bernh. Synt. v. 
ll. b. 2, p. 219. With the present 
semi-Hebraistic use of Aoyi¢. eis, it is 
instructive to contrast Xen. Cyr. ut. 1. 
33, xphuara eis dpytpiov Aoyodérta, 
where eis has its primary ethical mean- 
ing of measure, accordance to. 

On the doctrinal meaning of éAoyisdn 
Kk. T. A., see Bull, Harm. Apost, 11. 12, 22, 


GALATIANS. 


69 
7 , ” e elle / 
YWOCKETE Apa OTL Ol Ex Tic- 


and for an able comparison of the faith 
of Abraham with that of Christians, 
Hammond, Pract. Catech. Book. 1. 8. 


7. yevdowete t&pal ‘Know ye 


therefore,’ ahs [cognoscite} Syr., Vulg., 


Clarom., Armen.,— not indicative, as 
Jerome, Ps, Ambr., al., and most_re- 
cently Alf.: the dmper. is not only more 
animated, but more logically correct, 
for the declaration in the verse is really 
one of the points which the Apostle is 
laboring to prove; év Kepadalw diddoKe 
Tov “ABpadu ék micrews dixawSévra, Kal 
Tovs Tpodiuovs THs tictews viods Tod 
"ABpadu xpnuatiCovras, Theod.; see 
Olsh. in loc. The objections of Riick., 
and even of Alf. to the use of &pa with 
the imperf. are distinctly invalid; not 
only is the union of the imperfect with 
&pa logically admissible, and borne out 
by usage (comp. Hom. J/. x. 249), but 
further, in perfect harmony with the 
true lexical force of the particle: ‘rebus 
ita comparatis (Abraham's faith being 
reckoned to him as righteousness) cog- 
noscite,’ etc.; see Klotz. Devar. Vol. u. 
p. 167. of éx mlorews] 
‘they who are of faith,’ not ‘they who 
rest on faith’ (Green, Gr. p. 288), but, 
in accordance with the primary mean- 
ing of origin, ‘they who are spiritually 
descended from, whose source of spir- 
itual life is— iors: comp. Rom. ii. 8, 
oi €& épidelas, ‘qui a malarum fraudum 
machinatione originem ducunt,’ ‘qui 
malitiam tanquam parentem habent,’ 
Fritz. in loc., Vol. 1. p. 105. | 
obrot| ‘these (and none other than 
these ),’ ‘exclusis ceteris Abrahamo na- 
tis,’ Beng. ; see Jamesi. 25. This retro- 
spective and emphatic use of the pro- 
noun is illustrated by Winer, Gr. § 23. 
4, p. 144; see also Bernhardy, Syn. v1. 
8. d, p. 283, Jelf, Gr. § 658. 


70 


e / > e 3°93 i 
TEWS, OUTOL elow viol APBpadp. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuapr. III. 8, 9. 


* gpoidodoa 5é 1) ypady ort éx 


Tiatews SiKkalot Ta ESvN 6 Oeds, tpoevyyyedicato Te ’ABpaau 


OTL EvevoynSioovtas év gol TavTa Ta eSvy. 


9 ¢ a) , 
WOTE Ol CK TTld=- 


> Qn \ lal a? 4 
TEWS, EVNOYOUYTAL TLV TH TLTT@ ABpadap. 


8. rpotdotca dé h ypadh] ‘More- 
over the Scripture foreseeing : further 
statement that the faithful, who have 
already been shown to be the true chil- 
dren of Abraham, are also the only and 
proper participators in his blessing. This 
sort of personification is noticed by 
Schoettg. (Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 732) as 
a ‘formula Judzis admodum solemnis,’ 
é. J.. AINDN AS m2 ‘Quid vidit scrip- 
tura?’ san mya mo ‘Quid vidit ille, 
hk, e. quidnam ipsi in mentem venit? 
see also Surenhus. B:iBA. KaraAa. p. 6, 
sq. In such cases 4 ypap? stands obvi- 
ously for the Author, of the Scriptures 
— God, by whose inspiration they were 


written; compare Syr., where lous] 
970A 


[Aloha] is actually adopted in the trans- 
lation. 5é appears to be here 
petaBaridy, t. e. indicative of transition 
(Hartung, Partik. 5é, 2. 3, Vol. 1. p. 
165, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7. b, p. 393); it 
does not merely connect this verse with 
the preceding (Auth. Ver., Peile, Co- 
nyb., al.), but implies a further consid- 
eration of the subject under another 
aspect; ‘3 eam ipsam vim habet ut 
abducat nos ab eA re que proposita est, 
transferatque ad id, quod, missa illa 
priore re, jam pro vero ponendum esse 
videatur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 343. 
The exact force of 5¢, which is never 
simply connective (Hartung, Partzk. 
Vol. 1. p. 163) and never loses all 
shades of its true oppositive character, 
deserves almost more attentive consider- 
ation in these Epp. than any other par- 
ticle, and will often be found to supply 
the only true clue to the sequence and 
evolution of the argument. 

Sixatror| ‘justifieth ; not * would jus- 


tify,” Auth. (‘presens pro futuro,’ 
Grot.), nor present with ref. to what is 
now taking place (De W.), but what 
is termed the ethical present, with sig- 
nificant reference to the eternal and 
immutable counsels of God; &rvwSev 
Tavta Kal Spice kal mponydpevoev 6 Ocds, 
Theod.; comp. Matth. xxvi. 2, mapadi- 
Sorat; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, 
and for the rationale of this usage, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 2, p. 91. 
mpoeunyyeaAlaara| ‘made known the 
glad tidings beforehand ;? compare Gen. 
xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18. The com- 
pound mpoevayy. is somewhat rare; it 
occurs in Schol. Soph. Trach. 335, 
Philo, de Opif. § 9. Vol. 1. p. 7, de Mut. 
Nom, § 29, Vol. 1. p. 602 (ed. Mang.) 
and the eccles. writers. bre 
évevaAoy.] ‘shall be blessed in ;’ quo- 
tation, by means of the usual 671 recé- 
tativum, from Gen. xii. 3 (compare ch. 
xviii. 18, xxii. 18), though not in the 
exact words; the here more apposite 
but practically synonymous mdvta Te 
@Svn being used (perhaps from ch. xviii. 
18) instead of the waca: ai pbAas Tis yas 
of the LXX: compare Surenhus. BifA. 
Katada. p. 567. The simple form 
evAoyn®d. is adopted by Elz. (not Steph.), 
but only with FG and cursive mss. 
év gaol] ‘in thee,” as the spiritual 
father of all the faithful; not ‘ per te,’ 
Schott, but simply and plainly ‘in te,’ 
Vulg., Clarom., — the prep. with its 
usual force specifying Abraham as the 
substratum, foundation, on which, and 
in which, the blessing rests; compare 
1 Cor. vii. 14, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, 
p. 346. 

9. dé0re] ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently,’ 


see notes on ch. ii. 138. “Qere states the 





Cuap. III. 9, 10. 


They who are of the works 
of the Law lie under a 
curse, from which Christ 
has freed us; having en- 
sured to all in Himself the 
blessing of Abraham. 


result from the emphatic évevaoy. (ova- 
AoyiCéuevos emhyayev, Chrys.) : it is 
from the fact of the blessing having 
been promised to Abraham and his chil- 
dren, that of é« miorews share it, inas- 
much as they are true children (ver. 7) 
of Abraham; edAoynueva: eloly of... 
TH wictet mpoodvTes, Howep Kal 6 mortds 
"ABp. nvadynro, Theoph. avy] 
‘together with ;? not ‘similiter,’ Grot., 
but, in accordance with the regular 
meaning of the prep., ‘with,’ ‘in asso- 
ciation with’ (Winer, Gr. § 48. b, p. 
349), the mor@ serving to hint (Mey., 
Alf.) at that to which this association is 
truly to be referred; e% tis rolvuy rijs 
éxelvou ovyyevelas akiwSijvar Todse?, Thy 
éxelvouv mlativ Cnrovtw, Theod. The 
change of prep. introduces a correspond- 
ing change in the aspect in which Abra- 
ham is regarded : under év he is regarded 
as the Patriarch, the spiritual ancestor 
in whom, — under ody he is regarded as 
the illustriously faithful individual with 
whom, all of é« mior. share the blessing ; 
see Windischm. iz Joc. Schott cites a 
similar use of werd (with Gen.) Psalm 
cv. 6, judptouey peta Tav mwaTépwr; 
Eccles. ii. 16, droSaveira: 6 copds peta 
700 &ppovos; but in both cases a simi- 
larity of lot rather than a strict commu- 
nity and fellowship in it, seems implied ; 
as a general rule, werd twos implies 
rather coézistence, atv tim, coherence ; 
see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 68. 13. 1, and 
comp. notes on Eph. vi. 23. 

10. S004 yap x.7.A.] Proof of 
the justice of the conclusion in ver. 9 
with regard to of ék micrews; yap intro- 
ducing e contrario — a confirmatory no- 
tice of the acknowledged state of the 
other class, of é& Epywv vduov: not only 
are they not blessed with Abraham, but 


GALATIANS. 


71 


ivf \ > 4 , 
©"Ocor yap €& Epywv vomou eiciv, imd 
/ >? / i \ 
KaTapay cio yéypartas yap OTL émiKaTapatos 
cal A / n nn 5 
TGS 0S OUK éupever EV TAC TOS Yeypaypévols 


they are actually under a curse. St, 
Paul’s love of proving all his assertions 
has been often noticed; comp. David- 
son, Introd. Vol. 1. p. 145. of 
€& Epywv vdpmou| ‘they who are of, 
7, @. appertain to, rest upon, the works 
of the law,’ *quiin lege justitiam quee- 
runt,’ Bull, Harm. Ap. u. 7. 12; the 
primary force of éx, owing to the nature 
of the expression, being here slightly 
less obvious than in ver. 8, and suggest- 
ing more the secondary and derivative 
idea of dependence on than of direct 
origination from ; see Winer in Joc., and 
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 16, od« eiul é« tod 
THUaTos. bmd katdpav] ‘un- 
der a curse ;? not * under the curse,’ but 
almost simply and generally, ‘under 
curse’ = émixardparos ; comp. bd’ auap- 
tlav, Rom, iii. 9: the proof drawn from 
the O. T. becomes thus more cogent. 
‘Yd, it may be remarked, has appy. 
here no quasi-physical sense (xardpa 
being viewed in the light of a burden, 
Riick., Windschm.), but its common 
ethical sense of ‘subjection to;’ see 
Winer, Gr. § 49. k, p. 362. With 
regard to the argument, it is only neces- 
sary to observe that the whole obviously 
rests on the admission, which it was im- 
possible not to make, that no one of of 
e& %pyov vduov can fulfil all the requisi- 
tions of the law; see esp. Bull, Harm. 
Apost. 11. 7. 11, and comp. with it Us- 
teri, Lehrb. 1. 4. B, p. 60. yé- 
ypamtat ydp] Confirmation from 
Scripture of the preceding words. The 
quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26, 
though not in the exact words either 
of the Heb. or LXX}; comp. Surenhus. 
BiBAos Karaaa., p. 569, and Bagge in 
loc. The following 87: is omitted by 
Ree., but only with JK; mss.. and some 


72 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. ITI. 10, 11. 


2 a / fa) I n io] Sree A le? : ee) , 

év TO BiBXiw Tod vopov, TOU TovncaL avTda. btt dé ev vow@ 
’ \ a % A aA n a e / ’ , 

ovdels SeKarovTas Tapa To Oc@ dfjAov, OT 6 SlKavos ek TricTEws, 


Ff. Tov Tothoat arta ‘to 
do them,’ ‘ut faciat ea,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; 
purpose contemplated and involved in 
the éupéver. This use of the infin. to 
denote design, intention, is (with the 
exception of a few instances from the 
other writers in the N. T., Mark iv. 3 
[Rec.], James v. 17) confined to St. 
Paul and St. Luke; see Fritz. Matth. 


Excurs. 1. p. 485, Winer, Gr. § 45. 4. 


b, p. 377. The construction is not, 
properly considered, Hebraistic, but be- 
longs to later Greek, and may be cor- 
rectly explained as an amplification of 
the use of the gen., which serves first to 
mark the reswit or product (e. g. Il. B. 
397, kduata mwavrolwy advéuwv, Scheuerl. 
Synt.§ 1. 1, p. 79), then further, the 
purpose of the working object, and lastly 
(e. g. in LXX, where the Hebr. idiom 
' would naturally cause this development) 
becomes little more than explanatory and 
definitive ; comp. Gen. iii. 6, dpatdy éore 
Tov xatavojnoa, Exod. ii. 18, éraxdvare 
Tov wapayevéosat. In this latter case 
the first verb commonly marks a more 
general action, the second, one more 
limiting and special; comp. Gen. xxxiv. 
17, cicakovew huav Tod mepiTeueodat, and 
see esp, Thiersch, de Pent. 111, 12, p. 
173 sq., where this usage is well inves- 
tigated. The progress of this structure 
in classical Greek is briefly noticed by 
Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. 2, p. 357. 

ll. rt SE wx. 7. A.] ‘But (further) 
that in the law,’ etc.:’ continuation of 
the reasoning ; 5¢ subjoining to the ¢ ar- 
gumentum e contrario,’ — that those of 
the law are under the curse (ver. 10), 
—the supplementary argument derived 
from Scripture that no one under any 
circumstances is justified by the law. 
The oppositive force of 5¢ may thus be 
felt in the incidental reply which the 


verse affords to a deduction that might 
have been obviously made from ver, 10; 
‘but — lest any one should imagine that 
if a man did so éuwévew x. 7. A. he 
would be blessed —let me add,’ etc. ; 
compare De Wette in Joc. év 
vduq@| ‘under the law;’ zt e. in the 
sphere and domain of the law; Acts 
xiii. 39, Rom. ii. 12, iii. 19. The in- 
strumental meaning is grammatically 
tenable (object existing in the means, 
Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, see notes on 1 Thess. 
iv. 18), and even contextually plausible, 
owing to the prominence of év véum and 
its apparent opposition to Xpiords, ver. 
13 (see Meyer): as, however, owing to 
the inversion of the syllogism, the op- 
position between the clauses is much 
obscured, the simpler and more usual 
meaning is here to be preferred: comp. 
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3. The more in- 
clusive éy is thus perhaps chosen design- 
edly, as the Apostle’s object is appy. to 
show that the idea of justification falls 
wholly out of the domain of the law, 
and is incompatible with its very nature 
and character. Tapa TG Oeg] 
‘in the sight of ;’ t. e. ‘in the judgment 
of God’ (Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 
20), the idea of locality suggested by 
the prep. being still retained in that of 
judgment at a tribunal; see notes on 
2 Thess.i.6. This usage is sufficiently 
common in classical writers; see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v. 17. b, p. 257, and exx, 
in Palm u. Rost, Lex. s. v. mapd, 11. 2, 
Vol. 11. p. 667. bre 6 Sixatos 
k. T. A.] ‘because, The just shail live by 
faith,’ Habak. ii. 4, again cited in Rom. 
i. 17, Heb. x. 38, —this second gr: be- 
ing causal, the first simply declarative. 
It is extremely difficult to decide whether 
éx ior. is to be joined with 6 dfx. (‘the 
just by faith’), or with the verb. The 


Cnap. III. 12, 13. 


GALATIANS. 


73 


la e \ P ” 
Gioerars 6 Sé vemos ovK eotw ek Tictews, GAN 6 Troujoas 


> \ , > > a 
avta Cijcetar év avtots. 


former is perfectly correct in point of 
grammar, though doubted by Bp. Middl. 
(see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), and is 
adopted by Hammond, Meyer, and other 
careful expositors. As, however, it 
seems certain (opp. to Baumg.-Crus.) 
that the original Hebrew (see Hitzig in 
loc., Kl. Prophet. p. 263, 264) does not 
bear this meaning,—as St. Paul is 
quoting the words in the order in which 
they stand in the LXX, not in that (6 
éx miot. dix.) most favorable to such a 
transl.,— as the argument seems best 
sustained by the other construction (see 
Middl. in Joc, and comp. Bull, Exam. 
Cens, Animady. 111. 5), — and lastly, as 
Choetat éx wior. thus stands in more ex- 
act opposition to (ho. év abrots, it seems 
best with. Copt., Arm. (appy.), Chrys. 
(appy-), and the bulk of the older ex- 
positors, to connect ék miotews with 
Choerat. 

12. 6 5€ vomos x. 7. A.) ‘but the 
law is not of faith,’ scil. does not spring 
from it, has no connection with it in 
point of principle or origin; propositio 
minor of the syllogism, 6 Sik. é« mior. 
(ho. being the prop. major, év vdu. ovd. 
dix. the conclusion. The Auth, Vers. 
by translating 8¢ ‘and’ obscures the 
argumentation. 6 woihoas 
avtd| ‘he who hath done them,’ scil. T& 
mpootdypnata and T& xpiuara, mentioned 
in the former part of the verse here re- 
ferred to, — Lev. xviii. 5. Tlothoas is 
emphatic (‘ preecepta legis non sunt de 
credendis, sed de faciendis,’ Aquin.), 
and is prefaced by the adversative Aa’ 
as expressing a sentiment directly oppo- 
site to what has preceded. ‘There is 
thus no ellipse of yéyparra (Schott) or 
réyer (Bagge); comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
Ir. p. 284. The insertion of &vSpw- 
mos after aird ( Rec.) has only the author- 

10 


® Xpuctos jas éEnyspacev ex ris 


ity of DSEJK and mss., and is rightly 
rejected by most modern editors. 

év avtots| ‘in them,’ t. e., as Winer 
paraphrases, ‘ ut in his legibus, vite fons 
quasi insit. 

13. Xptords huas x.7.A.] ‘Christ 
ransomed us,’ etc.; vivid and studicdly 
abrupt contrast to the declaration in- 
volved in the two preceding verses ; the 
law condemned us, Christ ransomed us ; 
‘non dissimile asyndeton, Col. iii. 4, 
ubi item de Christo,’ Beng. 
nas) Jews; not Jews and heathens; 
‘Judeeos precipue pressit maledictio,’ 
Beng., compare Chrys. For (1) the 
whole context implies that the law is 
the Mosaic law: see Usteri in loc. (2) 
This law had, strictly speaking, no force 
over the Gentiles, but was, in fact, the 
peodrorxos between the Jews and Gen- 
tiles: Eph. ii. 14, 15. For a further 
discussion of this, consult Meyer and 
Usteri in loc., and Brown Galat, p. 129 
sq. The doctrinal deductions made 
from this and similar passages, though 
perfectly just and true (comp. Neand. 
Plant. Vol. 1. p. 488, Bohn), cannot be 
urged against the more limited meaning 
which the context seems obviously to 
require, einydpacer] ‘ran- 
somed,’ ‘redeemed.’ Christ ransomed 
the Jews from the curse of the law, by 
having taken it upon Himself for their 
sakes and in their stead. An accurate 
explanation of this, and the cognate 
idea droAd’rpwots, Will be found in Ust. 
Lehrb. u. 1. 1, p. 107, and rr. 1. 3, p. 
202. The force of the preposition (éx) 
need not be very strongly pressed, e. g. 
‘emtione nos inde eruit,’ Beng.: see 
Polyb. Hist. mr. 42, 2, e&nydpace map’ 
avtav td Te povdgtvAa WAola K. T. Ary 
where the prep. has no marked mean- 
ing. This tendency to use verbs com- 


74 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. III. 13, 14. 


lal , , e \ e lal / iA , 
KATAPOS TOU VOMOY YEvoMEVvOS UTEP HUY KATApPA, OTL YeypaTTTaL 
>] F a € / 5) \ 4 14 C7 , \ ooh 2 
Enm.xarapatos TAS O KPEMULEVOS ETL EvXov, Wa ES TA EXVN 1 


pounded with prepp. without any obvious 
increase of meaning, is one of the char- 
acteristics of later Greek ; Thiersch, de 
Pentat. Vers. Alex. tu. 1, p. 83. 

yevduevos tUwTEp Huey Kat.| by 
having become a curse for us ;” dependent 
participle expressing the manner of the 
action, which again is more distinctly 
elucidated in the quotation; Aéye 5¢é 
kal tov tpédmov, Theod. The abstract 
kardpa (not, ‘an accursed thing,’ Peile, 
— which dilutes the antithesis) is proba- 
bly chosen, as Meyer suggests, instead of 
the concrete, to express with more force 
the completeness of the satisfaction which 
Christ made to the law. On the doc- 
trinal import of the expression (katdpa 
Hrovoe 50 eué, 6 Thy euhv Adbwy Kardpay, 
Greg. Naz.) see the quotations in Suicer, 
Thes. 8. V. katdpa, Vol. 11. p. 57 sq., and 
for a few words of great force and elo- 
quence on the ‘ maledictum crucis,’ An- 
drewes, Serm. 111. Vol. 1. p. 174 (A. C. 
Libr. ). iwéep Hua@r| ‘forus,’ ‘salu- 
tis nostre reparande causa,’ Schott. In 
this and similar passages the exact mean- 
ing of the prep. has been much contested. 
Is it (a) ‘i commodum (alicwjus),’ or 
(8) ‘tn loco (alicujus)?’ The following 
seems the most simple answer. ‘Yzép, 
in its ethical sense, has principally and 
primarily (see note, ch, i. 4) the first 
meaning, especially in doctrinal passages, 
where the atoning death of Christ is al- 
luded to, e. g. 2 Cor. v. 21, ray wh ywdvTa 
Guaptiay bwép jhuav emoinoey Guaptiay. 
But as there are general passages in the 
N. T. where jrép has eminently the sec- 
ond meaning, e. g. Philem. 13, tva imép 
gov pot Siaxovy (comp. Plato, Gorg. 515 
C, ym brép cod aroxpwodpat),— so are 
there doctrinal passages (as here) where 
irtp may admit the second meaning 
united with the first, when the context 


(e. g. in 1 Cor. xv. 3 it would be inad- 
missible), and nature of the argument 
seem to require it, though probably never 
(Winer Gr. § 48.1, p. 342) the second 
exclusively : see Magee, Atonement, No. 
30, Vol. 1. p. 245 sq., and Usteri, Lehrb, 
1. 1, p. 115 sq., where the meaning of 
the prep. is briefly discussed, 

ort yéypamrta:| ‘forasmuch as it is 
written ;’ parenthetical confirmation of 
the assertion involved in the preceding 
participial clause, yevdu. «. 7. A. The 
passage in Deut. (ch, xxi. 23) here ad- 
duced does not allude to crucifying, but 
to exposure after death on stakes or 
crosses (Josh. x. 26), but is fully per- 
tinent as specifying the ‘ignominious 
particularity to which the legal curse 
belonged,’ and which our Redeemer 
by hanging dead on the cross formally 
fulfilled; see esp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 
tv. Vol. 1. p. 248 sq. (Burt.). It is in- 
teresting to notice that the dead body 
was not hanged by the neck, but dy the 
hands, and not on a tree, but on a piece 
of wood (‘non ex arbore sed ligno,’ 
Dassov.) ; see the treatise of Dassovius 
in Thesaur. Theolog.-Philol. Vol. 11. p. 
614, Jahn, Archeol, § 258, and Bahr, 
Stud. u, Krit. for 1849, p. 924 sq. 

The reading of Rec., yéypamrat ydp, has 
only the support of D®*EJK; mss.; 
Syr. (both) Copt., al., and bears every 
appearance of a confirmation to the 
more usual mode of citation, ver. 10. 

14. iva eis ta %Svy] ‘in order 
that unto the Gentiles :’ divine purpose 
involved in the éénydpacev ek THs kaTdpas 
x. Tt. A. The first purpose was the ran- 
som of the Jews from the curse; the 
second, which was involved in the first 
(St: ) owrnpia ex tav "lovdalwy éori, 
John iv. 22), was the extension of Abra- 
ham’s blessing to the Gentiles, but that, 





Cuap. TIL. 14, 15. 


GALATIANS. 


75 


> / a? x, / > a? oe 2 \ 

evhoyia Tod “ABpaap yévntas ev Xpiote Inood, iva rhv érayrye- 
/ n 4 a 

Mav Tod IIvevpatos AaBapev Sia Tihs wictews. 


Even the customs of men 
must show that the prom- 


6 *Adedpot, Kata aSpwTov eyo: Spyws 


ise of God to Abraham cannot be annulled by the law which was so long afterwards. 


not through the law but in Jesus Christ. 
Eis with accus, is here neither simply 
identical with dat. (comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 31. 5, p. 191), nor in its more lax 
sense of ‘in reference to’ (Piele; comp. 
Bern. Synt. v. 11, p. 219), but retains 
its proper Jocal meaning, with refer- 
ence to the metaphorical arrival of the 
evAoyia; see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. 
nN evrAoyla rod *ABp.] ‘the blessing 
of Abraham,’ scil. the blessing announced 
to and vouchsafed to Abraham (ver. 8), 
h evAoyla  éx micrews, Theoph.; the 
_ gen. being the gen. objecti ; comp. Rom. 
xv. 8, tas émaryyeAlas Tay Tatépwy, and 
see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. p. 167 sq., 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7, 1 sq. 

évy Xptortg “Ino.| ‘in Christ Jesus,’ 
‘in Christo Jesu,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., 
Arm.; not ‘propter,’ A&th., or for did, 
Grot. (comp. Chrys.), as this instru- 
mental use of éy with persons, though 
found in a few passages (comp. Matth. 
ix. 34, év r@ tpxovT1,— he was the 
causa efficiens), is here certainly not 
necessary. It was ‘in Christ,’ in the 
knowledge of Him and in His death, 
that the Gentiles received the blessing. 
fva thv x«.7.A.] ‘im order that we 
might receive; second statement of 
purpose, not subordinated to, but co- 
ordinate with the preceding one. Meyer 
cites as instances of a similar parallel- 
ism of fa, Rom. vii. 13, 2 Cor, ix. 3, 
Eph. vi. 19. The Apostle advances 
with his subject, till at last under AdBw- 
pev he includes all; ‘nos, omnium gen- 
tium homines, sive Judei, sive Barbari.’ 
thy éwayyeAtav Tod Mvevparos] 
‘the promise of the Spirit ;’ not merely 
7d emaryyeaStv TMveiua (Fritz. Rom. vi, 
4, Vol. 1. p. 368), but ‘the realization 


of the promise of the Spirit,’ érayy. 
being taken in a partially concrete sense ; 
comp. Luke xxiv. 49, Heb. x. 36, and 
see Winer, Gr. § 34. 8, p. 211. Gram- 
matically considered, rod Mvetu. may 
be a gen. subjecti, sc. * promissionem a 
Spiritu profectam,’ or a gen. objecti, as 
above. Doctrinally considered, how- 
ever, the latter is distinctly to be pre- 
ferred; the Spirit being usually repre- 
sented by the Apostle as not so much 


the source, as the pledge of the ‘fulfil- 


ment of the promise; see Usteri, Lehrb. 
11. 1, 2, p. 174 note. After a won- 
drous chain of arguments, expressed 
with equal force, brevity, and profund- 
ity, the Apostle comes back to the sub- 
ject of ver.2; the gift of the Holy 
Ghost came through faith in Jesus 
Christ. 

15. Gd3eA go? x. 7. A.] Proof that the 
promise was not abrogated by the law: 
ottw Seltas Thy miotiw mpecButépay Tov 
vouov, diddoKne: wad &s 6 vouos eurodav 
ov Sivarar yeveodat Tais @cod émayyerl- 
ats, Theod. Kata &vipwror| 
‘after the manner of men;’ é& avSpwrt- 
vov wapaxerypatwy, Chrys., avdpwrivors 
mpdypnact Kéxpnuat, Theod.; see notes, 
ch. i. 11. With this expression the 
Apostle here introduces an argument 
which rests on mere human analogies, 
and which he uses as men might (‘ tan- 
quam inter homines,’ Syr.), one to 
another: ‘affero exemplum ex hominum 
vita depromptum,’ Fritz. Rom. iii. 5, 
Vol. 1. 160, — where the various mean- 
ings of this formula will be found briefly 
noticed. duws &vadpdmov 
k. T. A.] ‘though it be but a man’s cove- 
nant, yet when confirmed,’ etc. : logically 
inexact, but not idiomatically uncommon 


76 


avSperrov Kexupapévny SiaSnxnv 
% 7d dé’ ABpaay éppéSncav ai 


transposition of 5uws, which, as the sense 
shows, really belongs to ovddefs. Both 
8uws and other adverbs (e. g. del, moAAd- 
kis, @71), are occasionally thus, as it 
were, attracted out of their logical or- 
der, when the meaning is otherwise 
distinct; see Winer, Gr. § 61. 4, p. 488, 
and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. duws, who 
observes that this transposition is most 
frequently found with participles; ‘ duws 
cum participio ita componitur, ut inclu- 
sum protasi tamen ad apodosin pertineat,’ 
Vol. 1. p. 318: compare Plato, Phedo, 
91. PoBetrar wh h WuxXh Suws Kal Sedre- 
pov kat KdAALoy by TOD GeuaTos MpoaToA-~ 
A’nra, and see Stalbaum, zn Joe. 
SiaSdhnny] ‘a covenant.’ It may be 
true, doctrinally considered, that it is 
not of much moment whether dad. be 
interpreted ‘ contractum an testamentum’ 
(Calv.); considered however exegeti- 
cally, it is obvious that (a) the order of 
the words, and (4) the comparison be- 
tween the diaSqxn of man and the da- 
Sh«n of God (ver. 17), tacitly instituted 
by the emphatic position of a&vSpémov 
(sing. to make the antithesis more ap- 
parent), both require exclusively the 
former meaning; so Ath. (kidan), and 
appy- Theoph. diadqrnyv na cvupwviar : 
the other Vv. either adopt diaShen (Syr., 
Copt.), or are ambiguous. A paper on 
the uses of this word in the N. T. will 
be found in the Classical Museum, Vol. 
vil. p. 299; see also Bagge in loc. 
émidiatdaoacetat| ‘adds new condi- 
tions,’ ‘superordinat,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
‘novas addit constitutiones,’ Bretsch. 
Lex. s. v., or, in effect, as it is neatly 
paraphrased by Herm., ‘additamentis 
vitiat ; comp. Joseph. Antig. xvu. 9, 4, 
and esp. Bell. Jud. u. 2. 3, dkiav rijs 
emidiadhuns Thy Siadhenv eivar kupwwré- 


pay. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. ITI. 15, 16. 


ovoels aderel  émridiatdooertal. 
errayyedlat, Kal TO oTréppatt 


16. r@ 5é "ABpadu] ‘Now to Abra- 
ham ,;’ parenthetical argument designed 
to make the application of this particu- 
lar e®ample to the general case perfectly 
distinct, and to obviate every misappre- 
hension. The Apostle seems to say; 
‘this, however, is not a case merely of a 
diadjnn, but of an émayyeAla, — yea, of 
émayyeAl at; nor was it made merely to 
a man Abraham (dvd. d1a%.), but to 
Christ. According to the usual inter- 
pretation, 5¢ introduces the prop. minor 
of a syllogism, which is interpreted by 
the parenthetical comment od Aéyer . . . 
Xpiords, but resumed in ver. 17, ‘ atqué 
Abraamo et semini,’ etc., Herm. To 
this, however, the objection of Meyer — 
seems very just, that in that case St. 
Paul would have undoubtedly given a 
greater logical prominence to the divine 
nature of the promises to Abraham by 
some such term as @eds 5& AG *ABp. 
kK. T. A.3 see also Alf. in loc. at 
emayyeAtac] ‘the promises ;’ plural, 
as being several times repeated (Est.), 
and couched in different forms of ex- 
pression; comp. Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, 
xvii. 8, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14. They in- 
volved, as Bengel well observes, not only 
earthly but heavenly blessings, ‘ terre 
Canaan et mundi, et divinorum bonorum 
omnium. The latter were more dis- 
tinctly future, the former paulo-post- 
future. On the exact spiritual nature 
of these promises, see Hengstenberg, 
Christol. Vol. 1. p. 38 (Clark). 

The so-called Ionic form éppéSnoav has 
the support of the best uncial MSS., 
and is adopted by most of the recent 
editors; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 447. 

kal T@ omépuart advtod| ‘and to 
his seed;’ emphatic, as pointing to 
Christ, and forming as it were the ful- 
crum of the argument which follows, 


Cuap. III. 16. 


avTov. 


GALATIANS. 


ov Réyee Kal ois oméppacu, 


TT 


e } pam ' A 
@S €7L Tod, 


> > id » 4g? . Te \ a , / 4 > 
aX ws eb evos Kat t@ oéppati cov, bs éotw Xpirros. 


The passages of Scripture referred to are 
here appy. Gen. xiii. 15, and xvii. 8, 
but not Gen. xxii. 18; so Iren. y. 32, 
Origen on Rom. iv. Vol. v. p. 276 (ed. 
Lomm.). ‘We may here pause to 
make a brief remark on the great free- 
dom with which so many commentators 
have allowed themselves to characterize 
St. Paul’s argument as either artificial 
(‘Schulkunst,’ Ewald) or Rabbinical 
(Mey. ; comp. Surenhus. BiBA. Karaaa. 
p- 84), or, as Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 665, 
has even ventured to assert, ‘ plainly 
arbitrary and incorrect.’ It may be true 
that similar arguments occur in Rab- 
binical writers (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. 
p. 736); it may be true that omépua 
(like y-7) is a collective noun, and that 
when the plural is used, as in Dan. i. 
12, ‘grains of seed’ are implied. All 
this may be so, — nevertheless, we have 
here an interpretation which the Apos- 
tle, writing under the illumination of 
the Holy Ghost has deliberately pro- 
pounded, and which, therefore (whatever 
difficulties may at first appear in it), is 
profoundly and indisputably true. We 
hold, therefore, that there is as certainly 
a mystical meaning in the use of yn, in 
Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, as there is an ar- 
gument for the resurrection in Exod. 
iii. 6, though in neither case was the 
writer necessarily aware of it. As 245 
in its simple meaning generally (except 
Gen. iv. 25,1 Sam. i. 11) denotes not 
the mere progeny of a man, but his 
posterity viewed as one organically-con- 
nected whole; so here in its mystical 
meaning it denotes not merely the spir- 
itual posterity of Abraham, but Him in 
whom that posterity is all organically 
united, the wAfpwua, the Kepadh, even 
Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly 


to convey to his Greek readers by the 
use of omépua and omépuata: see Olsh. 
and Windischm. in Joc., both of whom 
may be consulted with profit. 

ob Aé€vyer] ‘He sath not ;’ not 7 ypaph 
(Bos, Eddips. p. 54), as in Rom, xv. 10, 
— where this subst. is supplied from 
yéeypamrat, ver. 9, — or 7d mvedua (Riick., 
Winer, Gr. § 39. 1), which appears ar- 
bitrary, but the natural subject 6 @cés, 
as in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, and (gyal) 1 Cor. 
vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So appy. Syr., 


which here inserts gi, [illi] after Adve. 


@s éml morArAG@r| ‘as (speaking) of 
many.’ Apparently a solitary instance 
in the N. T. of this meaning of ém with 
gen. after verbs ‘dicendi,’ ete. (2 Cor. 
vii. 14 [Riick.], is not in point, as én} 
Tirov is there ‘coram Tito’), though not 
uncommon in classical Greek ; compare 
Plato, Charm. 155 pb, émt rod Knadod Aé- 
yov matds, and ib. Gorg. 453 2, mdAw 
8 ef em trav aitay texvav Aéyouev. In 
this use of émi, a trace of the local mean- 
ing (superposition, Donalds. Gr. § 483) 
may be distinctly perceived, the gen. 
representing as it were the substratum 
on which the action rests; comp. John 
vi. 2; and see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 23, 
p- 248, Winer, Gr. § 47. g, p. 335, and 
for a comprehensive notice of this prep., 
Wittmann, de Natura etc. émi (Schweinf. 
1846). és éoriv Xpiorés] 
‘Christ (Jesus), not Christ and his 
Church, as Hammond in loe.: this ap- 
pears evident from the emphasis which 
St. Paul lays on the use of the singu- 
lar; omépua dé abrod Kara odpxa éotly 6 
Xpiords, Chrys. Some useful remarks 
on this passage will be found in the 
Theol, Critic, No. rv. p. 494 sq. 


78 GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 17. 


" rodto O¢ Aéyo: Siadnxnv mpoKxexvpapéevnv bTd Tod Ocod [eis 
Xpicrov] 6 peta TeTpakdowa Kai TpidKovTa ETN YEyova@s vOomos OvK 


17. eis Xpiordy] ‘ for Christ,’ i. e., to be fulfilled in Christ: not * usque ad tem- 
pora Christi,’ or ‘in reference to Christ’ (Peile), but as in ver. 24. ‘These words 
are omitted by ABC; 17. 23*. 67**. 80; Vulg., Copt., Ath. (both); Cyr. (2), 
Dam.; Jerome, Aug. (often), Pel., Bed. (Lachm., Tisch., Mey.),— and it must 
be fairly owned have some appearance of being a gloss, still the authority for the 
insertion, — viz.. DEFGJK; most mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Arm. [correct 
Griesb.|; Chrys., Theod., Theoph., GEcum. ( Rec., Scholz), is so strong that we 
seem justified in an insertion in brackets. See Bagge in loc. (p. 95), who has 





argued with ability in favor of the Received Text. 


17. rodro 5& Aéyw] ‘This, how- 
ever, I say,’ ‘hoc autem dico,’ Vulg., 
Clarom. Instead of using the collective 
ody, Which might obscure the exact posi- 
tion which ver. 16 holds in the argument, 
St. Paul uses the explanatory formula 
TovTo d¢ Aéyw. The dé thus serves to re- 
sume the argument (capnvetas xdpiv ava- 
AauBdve: toy Adyov, Cicum.) after the 
short digression, kat’ avdp. Aéyw — TovTO 
dé Aéyw, and also to mark the application 
of the particular case to the general prin- 
ciple. 6 meTa TETpaKkdcLa 
kK. T. A.] ‘which came (so long a time as) 
four hundred and thirty years after- 
wards ;’ wera mAciotoy xpdvov, Theod, 
The chronological difficulty involved in 
this passage, when compared with Gen. 
xv. 13, Exod. xii. 40, and Acts vii. 6, can 
only be briefly noticed. Here the period 
from the promise to the exodus is stated 
to be 430 years; but in Exod. /. c. the 
same period, and in Gen. and Acts 7. ¢, 
the round number 400 is assigned to the 
sojourn in Egypt alone. ‘The ancient 
mode of explanation seems perfectly sat- 
isfactory, —viz., that the 430 years in- 
clude the sojourn in Canaan (about 215 
years) as well as that in Egypt ; the whole 
period of abode éy yj ob« idig (Gen. xv. 
13); comp. August. Quest. in Heptat. 11. 
47 (Vol. 11. p. 611, Migne), Usher, Chro- 
nol. Sacr. ch, 8. This is confirmed by the 
addition of the words kal év yf Xavady 


(Exod. 7. c.) in the LXX, and Samar. 
Pent.: see Petav. Rat. Temp. ur. Book 
2,4, Vol. u. p. 71, Hales, Chron. Vol. 
u. p. 153 (ed. 1811). It may be ob- 
served that the records of the family 
of Levi appear to render so long a so- 
journ in Egypt as 430 years impossible. 
Amram, grandson of Levi, marries his 
father’s sister Jochebed (Exod. vi. 20; 
comp. Exod. ii. 1, Numb. xxvi. 59). 
Now, as it appears probable by a com- 
parison of dates that Levi was born 
when Jacob was about 87, Levi would 
have been 43 when he came into Egypt ; 
there he lives 94 years (Exod. vi. 16). 
Assuming, then, even that Jochebed was 
born in the last year of Levi’s life, she 
must at least have been 256 years old 
when Moses was born, if the sojourn in 
Egypt be 430 years: see Windischm. in 
loc. The transposition @rn tetpak. 
Kk. T. A. (Rec.) has against it the author- 
ity of all the uncial MSS. except J K, 
and is certainly to be rejected. 

eis Th katTapyiHoat x.7.A.] ‘that 
it should render the promise of none 
effect,’ ad evacuandam promissionem,’ 
Vulg., Clarom. (compare /Eth., Syr.- 
Philox) ; eis 7d with the infinitive 
here retaining its usual primary force 
of object or intention: td Katapy. Was 
the object aimed at by the invalida- 
tion. It may be remarked that as the 
prep. alone may point to consequence as 


GALATIANS. 


Cnap. III. 18, 19. 79 


5S) an > \ aA \ 
akKUpOL, Els TO KaTapyhoat THY eTayyediav. * ei yap ex vomov 1 
ye > / > > / lal Be \ > 
KAnpovouia, ovKeTe €€ erraryyedias: TO SE’ ABpaap bv érayyerias 
/ 

Kexapiatat 6 Oeds. 
The law was to bring the 19 i a e y ° a f 
conviction of sin (positive Tt OvV oO VOLLOS ? TOV TapaBacewy 
answer): and was not against the promises of God (negative answer), to which it was a preparative institu- 


tion. 


well as intention (see exx. in Rost. u. 
Palm, Lez. s. v. éx} v. 1), we must not 
abruptly deny what is termed the ‘ec- 
batic’ force of es 7d: still usage seems 
to show that in St. Paul’s Epp. the final 
eis td SO much predominates (opp. to 
Jelf, Gr. § 625, 3. a), that even in pas- 
sages like 2 Cor. viii. 6, we must not 
conceive all idea of purpose wholly ob- 
literated ; compare Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, 
p. 294 sq., and see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 
12. 

18. €f yap é« vdmovl] Confirm- 
atory expansion of the preceding words ; 
‘I say advisedly, eis 7d katapy. kK. T. A.} 
for if the inheritance be of the law, the 
promise must plainly be reduced to in- 
operativeness and invalidity ; see Theoph. 
in loc. The prep. é« here preserves its 
primary meaning of origin under the 
slight modification of reswlt or conse- 
quence ; see notes on ch. ii. 16. 
nH KAnpovoulal ‘the inheritance ;’ 
here used by the Apostle in its higher 
meaning to denote that inheritance of 
the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom, 
—the inheritance of the heavenly Ca- 
naan, which was typified by the lower 
and primary meaning, the inheritance 
of the earthly Canaan; comp. Acts vii. 
5, Heb. xi. 4, and see Brown p. 147. 
ovKnéert €& emayyedAtas] ‘it ts no 
more of promise ;’ the latter supposition 
is excluded by the former ; comp. Rom. 
vii. 20, xi. 6, and see Winer, Gr. § 66. 
10, p. 545. Odxnérs is thus used in its 
simple Jogical sense without any tempo- 
ral reference. S50 émayye- 
Atas| ‘by means of promise ;’ not ‘in 
the form of a promise’ (Peile, Riick.), 


nor as uniting with wrexydp. as a mere 
equivalent to érnyyelAaro (AXth., both), 
but simply and plainly ‘per promis- 
sionem,’ Beza, ‘by virtue and by means 
of promise.’ The enjoyment of the in- 
heritance depended on no conditions, 
came through no other medium, save 
that of promise, Kexdptotas| 
‘hath freely given it,’ ‘gratis debit,’ 
Copt.; ‘notanda est emphasis in voce 
kex. Quee a xdpis deducitur, adeoque a 
Beza (?) recte vertitur gratijicatus est, 
confer Rom. iv. 13, 14, 15,’ Bull, Harm. 
Ap. u. 5.5. Kexap. may be translated 
intransitively, ‘Abrahamo grata fecit 
Deus’ (Schott, Olsh., Bretsch.) ; but as 
the verb is nearly always used transi- 
tively in the N. T., and as logical per- 
spicuity requires that the subject of the 
first member of the conditional syllo- 
gism (Beng.) should be supplied in the 
second, it appears most natural to tacitly 
supply «Anpovoutay as the obvious object- 
accusative. With the present use of the 
perf., implying the duration of the xdpis, 
contrast Phil. ii. 9, éxapioato ara bvoua, 
where the action is represented as a 
simple historical fact. 

19. rf otv 6 védmos| * What then 
is the law,’ t. e. ‘what is the meaning, 
the object of the law?’ Answer to the 
not unnatural objection, — that the Law 
must according to the Apostle’s reason- 
ing, be deemed a useless institution 
(wepittas érédn, Theod.), — by a state- 
ment of its real use, office, characteris- 
tics, and relation to the covenant of 
grace: iva wh tis voulon mepittoy Tov 
vouov, kad ToUTO Siopsovrat Td uépos, Setk~ 
vos 8rt ovK €ikH, GAAG Tavd Xpnoluws 


80 GALATIANS. Cuap. IIL. 19. 
xapw mpoceTédn, axpis ov EASH TO OTéppa @ emHY- 


€563n, Chrys. Ti is not for da tf 
(Schott, Brown), but is the idiomatic 
neuter expressive of the abstract nature, 
ete., of the subject; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. vit. 4, p. 336, and comp. Madvig, 
Synt. § 97, note. Meyer cites 1 Cor. 
iii. 5, ri ody éotw *“AmoAAds, but the 
MSS. evidence [CDEFGJ opp. to AB] 
seems there fairly in favor of tis. 

THY wapaBacewv xdpiv| ‘on ac- 
count of, ‘because of, the transgres- 
sions,’ ‘propter transgressiones,’ Vulg., 


> 
| ache Juke Vise [propter trans- 
gressionem} Syr., Copt. (ethbe), and 
appy. Arm. (vasn),—scil. to manifest, 
awaken a conviction of, and give as it 
were a distinctive existence to the trans- 
gressions of it (which existed but were 
not properly recognized as such), whether 
previous or subsequent to its introduc- 
tion; comp. Rom. v. 13, &xpi yap vowov 
Gpaptia iv ev xéoum, the more generic 
Gaptia being there used, as sin is not 
contemplated (as here) specially in the 
light of a transgression of a fixed or- 
dinance. Owing to the various shades 
of meaning that have been assigned to 
xdpiv, the exact significance of these 
words is somewhat debatable. Of the 
many interpretations that have been 
proposed, three deserve consideration, 
(a) ‘ad coercendas transgressiones ;’ as 
Chrys. (avr) xadwod 6 vdéuos), Theoph. 
(Ecum., Jerome, and most of the older 
expositors : (8) ‘transgressionum gratia,’ 
scil. to call them forth, to multiply them, 
and, as it were, bring them to a head, 
Rom. v. 20, vii. 7; so appy. Clarom., 
‘factorum (?) gratia,’ very distinctly 
Eth. (both), ‘ut multiplicarent pec- 
cata,’ and some modern expositors, 
Meyer, Alf., al.: (y) ‘transgressionum 
causa, t, e. ‘ut transgressiones palam 
faceret, eoque modo homines cogeret ad 
agnitionem sui reatus,’ Caly.; Rom, iii, 


20; so appy. Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., 
Aug., Beza, Winer (appy.), and also in 
part Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. u. 2, p. 
48) who objects both to (a) and the ex- 
treme view of (8). Of these in- 
terpretations we must, in spite of the 
authority of the Greek commentaters, 
plainly reject (a) on lexical grounds, as 
no satisfactory exx. (Soph. Gd. Col. 
443 [see Herm.] is not to the point, nor 
1 John iii. 12, nor even Clem. Hom. x1, 
16, tay mapartwudtwy xdpw 7 Timwpla 
éwetat) have as yet been adduced of 
such a practically reversed meaning of 
xdpw. The second (f) is more plausi- 
ble, but still open to the grave objection, 
that in a comparatively undogmatical 
passage it ascribes a purpose directly to 
God (contrast Rom. v. 20, véuos mapeo- 
HAsvev iva x. 7. A.), Which would have 
certainly needed a fuller explanation. 
We may retain, therefore, with some 
confidence (y), which is both lexically 
defensible (see below), and yields a good 
and pertinent sense. The office of the 
law was to make transgressions palpable, 
to awaken a conviction of sin in the 
heart (rd metoa cidévar Ta oiketa Guapth- 
para, Chrys.), and make man feel his 
need of a Saviour. It was thus also 
necessarily temporary (&xpis 0b K. 7. A.), 
for when the Seed did come, higher 
influences began to work within. 

It only remains briefly to answer the 
lexical objection of Meyer, by stating 
that xdpw (esp. in later writers) does 
not always mean ‘in gratiam,’ but in- 
cludes all shades of meaning, from in 
gratiam to causdé and propter, just as 
those of €vexa range from causé to guod 
attinet ad; see Bernh, Synt. vy. 16, p. 
233, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. xdpw, and 
comp. exx. in Ast, Lex. Plat. and Rost, 
u. Palm, Lez. s. v. A discussion 
of this passage and the general scope of 
the law will be found in Petay. de 


Cuap. ITI. 19. 


ov 


Predest. x. 25. 1, Vol. 1. p. 461; com- 
pare also Bull, Exam. Cens. x1x. 6, and 
more recently Baur, Apost, Paud. 11. 5, 
p- 581 sq., but observe that all these 
writers adopt the negative meaning of 
xdpwv. Tpogeré snl ‘was su- 
peradded,’ ‘super-addita est,’ Herm.; 
it was, however, as Meyer observes, no 
emdiadhjcn, but a totally fresh institu- 
tion. The reason is given by Gicum., 
ta deltn toy vouov wh bvta mpwrdtumov 
Gowep ai émayyeAla ciciv. The 
present reading is supported by ABCDs 
EJK; most mss.; Theod. (2), Dam., 
Theoph., GEcum., and is distinctly to be 
preferred to érédn (Rec.), which has 
both less external authority [D!FG; 
5 mss. (Vulg., Clarom., appy., — but in 
such cases Vv. can hardly be cited) 
Clem., Orig., Euseb.], and also seems to 
have been a very natural substitution for 
a more difficult word. axpeis 
ov An] ‘until the seed shall have 
come ;’ ‘terminus ad quem’ of the 
duration of the newly introduced in- 
stitution (Mey.), involving the obvious 
query, rl mepatépw ral mapa kaipdoy abtoy 
éAxeis, Chrys. This use of the sub- 
junct. after an aor. in temporal sen- 
tences, can be fully defended on the 
recognized principle, that the past is 
contemplated by the writer as a present, 
from which, as it were, he is taking his 
survey of what would be then future, 
though now past; see exx. in Winer, 
Gr. § 41.1, p. 257 sq., comp. Schmalf, 
Synt. § 128. 2, Klotz. Devar, Vol. ‘11. 
p- 618. It must, however, be applied 
with caution both in the N. T. and in 
later Greek, owing to the gradual dis- 
use of the opt. and the tendency of the 
subj. to take its place. Meyer calls at- 
tention to the omission of &y as evincing 
the idea in St. Paul’s mind of all 
absence of obstacles; see Herm. de 
Partic. ty, u. 9, p. 110, Klotz, Devar. 
ll 


yeAtat, Stataryels 


GALATIANS. 


ayyérwr, 


81 


éy yeupt —ecirov. 
Vol. 1. p. 568, Schmalf. Syné. § 121. 

@ emnyyeaAtat| ‘to whom the prom- 
ise has been made ;’ wept Xpiotod Aéywv, 
Chrys. ; comp. ver. 16, ép5é3noav —7¢ 
omépuart, It does not seem desirable 
to destroy the parallelism of these two 
clauses by translating émfy.; sc. 5 cds, 
actively. S:atraryels| ‘ordained,’ 
not ‘ promulgated,’ Ust., Winer, but 
simply ‘ordinata,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘dis- 
posita,’ Clarom.; see Philo, Op. Mund. 
I. 1, diaretaypévwv bd Tay vomodeTav, 
and comp. Hesiod, Op. 274, véuor d:é- 


. take Kpoviwy, where one Scholiast (Pro- 


clus) paraphrases it by the simple verb, 
The participial clause serves to add 
accessory details and distinctions to 
mpocet., and is not prior to, but con- 
temporaneous with the action described 
by the finite verb; comp. Col. ii. 15, 
and see notes im Joc. On the union of 
the part. with the finite verb. see the 
brief but pertinent remarks of Bern-- 
hardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, and the more 
elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, Synt. § 
205 sq. It would certainly seem that, 
esp. in later Greek writers, the part. is 
often associated with the finite verb, 
where two verbs united with a copula 
would have seemed more natural and 
even more intelligible; see the exx. in 
Herm. Viger, No. 224. On the best 
mode of translating these sort of partici- 
ples, see notes on Phil. ii. 30 ( Transl. ) 

82° ayyéAwy] ‘through angels, per 


angelos,’ Vulg., Clarom., lol pee 
w 4 ° 


[in manu angelorum] Syr., scil. ayyéAww 
broupyotvtwy, Theod.: third character- 
istic of the law (see next note) serving 
to show the distinction, in point of man- 
ner and circumstance, between its en- 
actment and the giving of the Promise : 
‘per angelos, in manu mediatoris, du- 
pliciter mediate,’ Beng.; comp. Baur, 
Paulus, p. 582. There is thus no reason 


82 GALATIANS. 


6 O& pecitns évos ovK 

whatever for modifying this meaning 
of dé; it points simply and plainly to 
the media and intervenient actors, by 
whose ministry the law was enacted; 
see Joseph. Antig. xv. 5, 3, jay Ta Kda- 
Aorta TaY SoyudTrwv Kal TA doLwTAaTA TOY 
év tois véuots BC ayyéAwv Tapa Tov 
@cod paddvtwv, Deut. xxxiii. 2 (LXX), 
and see Winer, Gr. § 47. 1, p. 339, note. 
év xetp) peotrov| ‘in the hand 
of a mediator, ‘in manu mediatoris,’ 
Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm.: 
fourth and most important distinction 
(see below) between the law and the 
Promise, and to which the argument of 
ver. 20 specially refers. The éy is not 
instrumental ‘dy the hand,’ Mey. (on 
the ground that Moses received the law 
from God, and gave it to the people; 
comp. Baur, Apost, Paul. p. 583), but, 
as the use of the singular, and the Ara- 
maic idiom both suggest, combines with 
"3, Scil. ‘ ministerio (media- 





xXeEtpl as = 
toris) ;? 77 rovrov Séoer Mwvoéws Siaxo- 
vovytos, ‘Vheodoret ; see 2 Chron, xxxiii. 
8, Josh. xiv. 2, Wisdom xi. 1. 

That Moses is the mediator here referred 
to (Deut. v. 5), seems now so generally 
admitted, that we may reasonably won- 
der how the early expositors (Basil and 
Theodoret are exceptions) could have so 
generally coincided in the perplexing 
view of Origen (Vol. v. p. 273, ed. 
Lomm.), that the peoirns here men- 
tioned was Christ. Great difference of 
opinion, however, exists as to St. Paul’s 
object in recounting these details. If 
it was to prove the Jowliness of the law, 
such a recital would in several parts 
rather seem to convey the contrary. If 
it was to show the glorious nature 
(Mey.), such an object would appear 
seriously at variance with the context. 
The more natural view is, that it was 
to mark the fundamental differences be- 
tween the law and the Gospel, and 


7 € 
€oTLV, O 


Cup. III. 19, 20. 


5é Oeds cis ori. 
thence, as a natural result of the contrast, 
the transitory and provisional nature of 
the former. The law was an institution 
(1), ta&v mapaBdoewy xdpw, restricted 
and conditioned; (2), &xpis ob «. 7. A., 
temporary and provisional ; (3), Ssatayels 
50 ayyéAwy mediately (not immediately) 
given by God; (4) év xe«pl wec., medi- 
ately (but not immediately) received 
from God: see Olsh. and Windischm. in 
loc. 

20. 6 8é 
mediator,’ or, according to our English 
idiom, ‘a mediator ;’ the dé being ¢ransi- 
tional (uetaBarixdy, see notes on ch. iii, 
8), and the article referring, not to the 
mediator previously mentioned, ‘this 
mediator’ (Brown), but to the generic 
idea of a mediator; ‘ articulus definit 
indefinita, idque duobus modis, aut de- 
signando certo de multis, aut que multa 
sunt, cunctis in unum colligendis,’ Herm. 
Iph. Aul. p. xv. (Pref.); see Winer, Gr. 
§ 18. 1, p. 97. évds ovK @o- 
Ttv| ‘appertains not unto one,’ * does 
not belong to any single one, — any one 
who stands isolated and by himself, but 
implies éwo parties ;’ so Copt. and Arm., 
both of which throw that slight em- 
phasis on the é€vos, which the Greek 
seems both to require and suggest; con- 
trast Hofmann, Sehriftb. Vol. 11, 2, p. 
48, who, appy. without any just ground, 
asserts the contrary. This idea of sin- 
gleness and isolation is really our only 
clew. 
remaining words it is necessary to pre- 
mise that all idea of the verse being a 
gloss (Michaelis, Liicke, Stud. uw. Krit. 
for 1828, p. 83 sq.) must be summarily 
dismissed, as there is no variation found 
in the MSS. or mss., either in the words 
or their order. 6 dé Oeds etfs 
éativ] ‘but Gop is one;’ ‘Gop (not 
without slight emphasis, comp. ver. 21), 
the direct and personal giver of the 


peotirns| ‘Now every 


With regard to this and the - 


Cnap. III. 20. 


Promise, does stand single and isolated, 
—dealt singly with Abraham (7 dé 
"ABp. 3 émayyeAlas nexdpicta 5 Oeds, 
ver. 18), — and, by consequence, is (in 
the promise) mediatorless ;’ prop. minor 
of a syllogism, of which the conclusion, 
being obvious, is omitted; see below. 
Out of the mass of interpretations of 
this terse sentence (said positively to 
exceed 400), Schleiermacher, Winer, 
and Meyer best deserve attention. A 
brief notice of these will serve to illus- 
trate the precise nature of the difficul- 
ties. In the first part of the verse all 
are agreed; ‘now every mediator in- 
volves the idea of more than one:’ in 
the concluding clause they thus differ. 
(1) Schleiermacher, adopted by Usteri, 
Lehrb. ur. 1. 2, p. 179; ‘but God is 
one’ — in reference to His promises, free, 
unfettered by conditions. (2) Winer; 
‘but God is one’ — one part only (com- 
pare Aith.-Pol., ‘unus est duorum’) ; 
‘the people of Israel must be the other 
part : hence they are bound to the law.’ 
(3) Meyer; ‘but God (on the contrary) 
is one’ — and one only (ein Einziger) ; 
there is then a fundamental difference 
in the number of parties concerned in 
the law and the promise. Schl. and 
Win. thus connect ver. 20 with ver. 19 
as an epexegesis; Mey. joins it with ver. 
21, making it St. Paul’s own statement 
of a difficulty that might arise in a rcad- 
er’s mind. . Meyer’s interpretation has 
this advantage ovr Schleicrmacher’s, 
that it preserves the numerical idea 
which plainly belongs to ¢fs; and this 
over Winer’s, that 6 @eds, which is 
clearly the subject, is not practically 
turned into the predicate. In the under 
stress, however, which it places on the 
idea of unity as opposed to that of plu- 
rality, and more esp. in the assumption 
that 6 5¢ Ocds x. T. A. is in fact a mono- 
theistic ‘locus communis’ (comp. Jow- 
ett), it cannot be pronounced wholly 
satisfactory. Perhaps the following 


GALATIANS. 


83 


simple explanation is less open to objec- 
tions. The context states briefly the 
four distinctive features of the law (see 
above) with tacit reference to the émay- 
yeAia. Three of these are passed over ; 
the dast as the most important, is no- 
ticed ; ‘the law was with, the promise 
was without a mediator.’ Ver. 20 thus 
appears a syllogism of which the con- 
clusion is omitted: ‘Now a mediator 
does not appertain to one (standing or 
acting alone); dwt (in the promise): God 
is one (does stand and act alone): 
THEREFORE (in the promise) A MEDIATOR 
DOES NOT APPERTAIN TO Gop. Is then 
the law (a dispensation which, besides 
other distinctions, involved a mediator) 
opposed to the promises which rested ON 
Gop (and involved no mediator)? God 
forbid.’ According to this view the 
only real difficulty is narrowed to the 
propositio minor. How was God one? 
And the answer seems, — not because 
He is essentially unity (comp. De W.), 
nor because he is one by Himself, and 
Abraham is one by himself (Baur. Pau. 
p- 583), nor yet because he is both the 
giver, the Father, and the receiver, the 
Son, united (ed. 1, Windischm.; an 
interpr. too devoid of simplicity and too 
expressly theological), but, with the as- 
pect that the last clause of ver. 18 puts 
on the whole reasoning, — because He 


dealt with Abraham singly and directly, . 


stood alone, and used no mediator. 

The almost obvious objection to this ex- 
planation is, that it. implies and involves 
a limitation (‘in the promise’) in a 
clause which seems a mere ‘locus com- 
munis :’ but the answer does not seem 
unreasonable, that even assuming that 
the minor was really suggested to the 
Apostle, as being a general axiomatic 
statement, his previous declaration of 
God’s having dealt with Abraham with 
no other medium than his own gracious 
promise (8: érayyeAfus) showed what 
he really regarded as the present verifi- 


84 


GALATIANS. 


| Caap. III. 21. 


a na an n \ 
26 ody vomos KaTa TOY éTayyEAL@v TOD Oeovd; jr) yévoLTO. 
el yap €dd3n vowos 6 Suvapevos CwoTrotioat, dvTws €K VvOmov av Hv 


cation of it. The reader who de- 
sires to examine some of the other inter- 
pretations may consult, for the earlier, 
Bonitz, Plur. de Gal. iii. 20 Sentent. 
Examinate, Lips. 1800; for the later, 
Winer’s Excursus, and Meyer in oc, 
21. 6 ody véuos x. 7. A.] ‘Is the 
law then against the promises of God ;’ 
the ody with its full collective force 
(Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717), gather- 
ing up the previous reasoning and im- 
mediately applying its obvious though 
omitted result ; ‘does then a confessedly 
distinctive, ceremonial, and mediato ial 
system stand in opposition with the 
promises which God gave to Abraham 
without a mediator and without any 
distinctive ceremonies >’ TaD 
@eod is not without emphasis: ‘the 
promises which rest immediately on 
God, and were attested by no mediator.’ 
The plural ai émayyeA. is used, as in 
ver. 16, in ref. to different repetitions of 
the promise, and to hint at the various 
ways of fulfilment which it contem- 
plated. Lachm. places. rod @eod in 
brackets, in consequence of its omission 
in B, Clarom. Sangerm.,—but on au- 
thority almost obviously insufficient. 
el yap €863n] ‘For tf there had been 
given ;’ proof of the justice of the fore- 
going declaration ph yévorro; mpa@tov 
bev Gmaryopever eiray, wh yévoiro: ereita 
kal Katackevd¢er, Chrys. On the use of 
hy yévarro see notes on ch. ii. 17, 
vémos 6 Suvduevos| ‘a law (as the 
principle) which could have,’ etc. This 
is one out of many instances, both in 
the N. T. and elsewhere, in which, to 
give prominence to the defining clause, 
the anarthrous noun is followed and 
defined by the article attached to a par- 
ticiple, e. g. Rom, ii. 14, vy ra wh 
yéuoy xovra: see further exx. in Winer, 


Gr. § 20, 4, p. 126, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
s. v. 6, Vol. m. p. 241. ¢w o- 
moijaat| ‘to give life (and blessed- 
ness ) ;’ * vivificare, sive vitam dare, idem 
est quod dare xAnpovoutay, heereditatem 
vite celestis atque zeterne,’ Bull, Exam, 
Cens. xix. 6; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, and 
comp. Ust. Lehrd. 1. 4. § B, p. 61. So 
also in ver. 12, Choerar (= (why aidnov 
éfe1, Olsh. on Rom. i. 17) similarly in- 
volves the ideas of life and blessedness, 

byrws KT. A] ‘verily,’ ete.; ‘ap- 
prime notanda est emphasis egregia in 
adverbio dvrws, vere,’ Bull, Exam. Cens. 
x1x, 6. It has been asked whether St. 
Paul is here reasoning (a) from the 
effect ((wor.) to the cause (Sixaoc.) ; 
or, conversely (5), from the cause ((wor., 
assumed to mean a new moral life) to 
the effect (Sixasoa.); compare Neander, 
Plant. Vol. 1. p. 418 (Bohn).  Cer- 
tainly the former; dixatoc. is really, as 
Ust. properly observes, the middle mem- 
ber of between véuos and (wh, without 
which the law could not have given 
life. St. Paul, however, thus states his 
argument: ‘lex vitam dare non potest, 
proinde neque veram justificationem,” 
Bull, Ex. Cens. 7. ce. The order 
adopted in Rec. ivrws by ex vduov Fr, 
has only the support of D3EJK; mss. ; 
Chrys., Theod., al., and is rejected by 
most critical editors. éx vémoul 
‘would have resulted from the law,’ 
‘would have come from the law as its 
origin,’ not * would have been suspended 
on law’ (Peile),—a meaning which 
usually arises from the associated verb, 
deity, apracda, etc., and does not appear 
to be very common out of Herodot. ; 
comp. Bernhardy, Synz. v. 13, p. 227. 
The order in Rec., dv éx vduov iv, with 
D8EJK; mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.], 
has not sufficient authority, though, 


Cuap. III. 22. 


GALATIANS. 


85 


n Sixatootyn ™ adda cuvéxdeicev 4 ypady Ta TavTa bd dyap- 
U / ae / > / > n a a ~ 
tiav, wa » émayyeria éx tictews ‘Inood Xpictod d037j Tois 


it must be admitted that, owing to the 
variations in the leading MSS. (B év 
véuw, D om. &, FG om. & jv), the 
text is not wholly free from suspicion. 
22. &AAG] ‘But on the contrary,;’ not 
dé, as there is a marked adversative re- 
lation between the clauses, and as a 
statement in ref. to the law is about to 
be made exactly contrary to the result 
of the foregoing assumption; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. u. p. 2, 3. In Latin, this 
distinction can usually be maintained 
by the more distinctly adversative sed 
(Vulg., Clarom.), not the more simply 
oppositive autem, in which the latter 
particle, ‘discrimen proprie indicatur, 
non diversitas,’ Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1 
p. 555, comp. Klotz, Vol. 1. p. 361. 
ouvéKAetoev h ypagnr| ‘the Scrip- 
ture shut up ;’ not equivalent to 6 vduos 
(Jowett, al.), but with a kind of per- 
sonification, 7 Sela ypaph (Theod.), the 
Scripture of the Old Test. as the repre- 
sentative of Him by whom it was in- 
spired; comp. ver. 8. With regard to 
the meaning of ovykAclew (* concludi 
sub peccato is dicitur, qui peccati reatu 
adhuc obstrictus tenetur,’ Bull, Ez. Cens. 
xix. 6), it may be observed (1) that the 
declaratory sense (‘ conclusos declaravit,’ 
Bull, comp. Baur, Paulus, p. 581), does 
not lie in the verb (see Rom. xi. 32, 
where the act is ascribed to God), but 
in the context; and (2) that the prep. 
ovy does not imply the similarity of 
situation of all (Beng.), but simply the 
idea of contraction (Mey.), ‘ab omni 
parte clausit,’ Schott 2; comp. cvumeé- 
(ew, cuumviyew: see Fritz, Rom. xi. 32, 
Vol. 1. p. 545, and exx. in Rost u. 
Palm, Lez. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1895, where 
instances are cited of ovyraA. being used 
in reference to a single person. On 
this text and on the general relation of 


the law to sin, see the weighty sermon 
of Usher, Serm. v. Vol. x11. p 60 sq. 
(ed. Elringt.). Ta Tavera} 
‘all,’ The neuter cannot safely be 
pressed (non modo onmes sed omnia 
Beng.), as if it were specially chosen 
to include not only men, but all their 
actions, etc., ‘humana omnia,’ Jowett 
(comp. Alf., Windischm.); this being 
required by the context (comp. ver. 23), 
nor justified by St. Paul’s usus loquendi : 
see Rom. xi. 32, where, in a passage 
exactly similar, the masc. is used, and 
comp. Theodoret 7m Joc , who divides the 
7a mdvta into rods mpd vduov, and obs 
év véuw. The exact difference between 
Tous mdavtas and 7& mdvra is, perhaps, 
here no greater than between ‘all men’ 
and ‘all mankind’ (see Ust.): the neu- 
ter is idiomatically and _ instinctively 
chosen, as best suiting the generality of 
the declaration; compare Winer, Gr. § 
27. 5, p. 160, Seidler on Eur. Troad., 
426. tva h emaryy.| ‘in order 
that the promise ;’ object and intent, — 
not the mere recognized consequence 
(‘quo appareat dari,’ Winer) of the 
obvyraAeots, on the part of 4 ypap} and 
God its author. The abstract éwayyeAia 
is here, as the context suggests, practi- 
cally equivalent to the concrete ‘res 
promissa’ (Schott), scil. cAnpovoula ; see 
ver, 18, Heb. x. 36, xi. 39, and comp. 
Test. xu. Patr. p. 725, 6 cds eiodte 
Suas eis Thy émaryeAlay (cited by Bretsch. 
Lex. s. v.), where this concrete notion 
is taken in its widest extent as— 7 yj 
ris émaryyeAlas ; SO KAnpovoula, 2 Macc. 
ii, 4. éx wiotews I. X.] ‘by 
faith in Jesus Christ,’ ‘resulting from 
faith as its source and origin (notes, ch. 
ii. 16); é« mior. being in close union, — 
not with 3097 (Riick., Conyb.), but with 
éraryyeAla (compare Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, 


86 


/ 23 
TlLOTEVOVOLY. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. III. 23. 


mpo Tod dé EMNeiv THY TictLV, bo Vomov eppov- 


povpeSa ovyKekercpévot eis THY éAOVCaY TlaTW aToKahUPS- 


p- 123, notes on Eph, i. 15), and forming 
a retrospective antithesis to é« vduou, ver. 
21. The genitive "Ino. Xp. is perhaps 
here to be taken in its most comprehen- 
sive sense; not only ‘faith on Christ’ 
gen. objecti), but ‘faith as given by 
Him’ (gen. subjecti); comp. notes on 
ch. ii. 16. In the N. T. especially, the 
connection of the nom. and gen. must 
often be explained solely from exegetical 
considerations; see Winer, Gr. § 30, 1, 
p. 168 
‘to them that believe ;? not ‘qui erant 
credituri’ (Grot. Peile), but ‘eis qui 
credunt,’ Clarom., al., ‘ credentibus,’ 
Vulg., the apparent tautology not being 
intended merely as emphatic (Winer), 
but as suitably echoing the é« wictews 
above. The Galatians were ready to 
admit that those who believed would 
be saved, but they doubted whether 
faith alone was sufficient; hence the 
apostle interposes the limitation in ref. 
to the thing promised (% émayy. ék 
mior.), and virtually repeats it in ref. 
to the recipients. The promise was of 
faith not of the law; the receivers were 
not doers of the law, but believers; 
comp. Meyer én Joe. 

23. rpd rod SE wn. 7.A.] ‘But be- 
fore Faith (above mentioned) cume ;’ 
further account of the relation in which 
the law stood to faith, 5¢ not being here 
distinctly oppositive, but with some 
tinge of its primary enumerative force 
(see Donalds. Crat. § 155), adding a 
further explanation, though in that ex- 
planation serving to introduce a con- 
trast; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 362. 
With regard to the position of the par- 
ticle, it may be remarked that there is 
nothing unusual (opp. to Riick.), in 8 
thus occupying the ¢hird place after a 
prep. and its case; see exx. in Hartung, 


Tots TigtTEvOVGLY] 


Partik. 8é, 1. 6, Vol. % p. 190. The 
common-sense principle is, that 5¢ does 
not necessarily occupy the second place, 
but the first possible place which the 
internal connection of the sentence will 
admit of; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 
378. iwd vopov eppouvpodr- 
meda x. 7. A.] ‘we were kept in ward 
shut up under the law; ovyxerx. being 
joined, not with eis migrw (see follow- 
ing note), but, in a construction similar 
to that of the preceding verse, with imd 
véuov (Arm., al.); the law, in fact, is 
here (as duapria in ver. 22) represented 
as a kind of gaoler into whose custody 
we were delivered; see Késter, Stud. u. 
Krit. 1854, p. 316. The meaning of 
gpoupeioSa is thus not merely ‘asser- 
vari’ (Winer, Schott), much less ‘ ob- 
stringi ad obedientiam’ (Bretsch.), but, 
as the definite expression cuyrerA. dis- 
tinctly requires, ‘ custodiri,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Copt., Aith.), domep év rerxio Tur 
Katéxeosai, Chrys.; compare Wisdom 
xvii. 15, éppoupeiro eis thy aalSnpov 
eipxthy kataxAeiodels. The perf. part., 
it may be observed, correctly expresses 
the permanent, completed state of the 
captivity, and is thus not only on criti- 
cal but exegetical grounds to be pre- 
ferred to the pres. cvyxAcsduevor [Lachm. 
with B(Mai)D1FG ; 2 mss.; Clem. (1), 
Cyr. (3), Dam.], which was not im- 
probably a conformation to the imperf. 
éppovp.: so rightly De W., Mey., and 
the majority of recent critics. 

eis Thy méAAovcay k.7.A.] ‘for 
the faith about to be revealed ;’ object 
contemplated in the action of ppotpnais, 
eis not being temporal, ‘usque ad’ 
(Riick., Ust., comp. Copt., Aith.),—a 
meaning comparatively rare in the New 
Test. (compare John xiii. 1), and here 
certainly superfluous after the predica~ 


Crap. III. 24, 25. 


Val, 


, / ied 
Ex TriaTEWs OLvKALWI@pLEV" 


By faith in Christ we 
have become freed from 


GALATIANS. 


87 


4 e , . Py XN i? a / > + leg 
WGTE O VOM“OS TAaLoaywyos NuaV yeyovey eis Xpiator, iva 


’ 4 \ A 
®"EXovons 6€ tHS mloTews ovKéte WTO 


the pedagogy of the law, and are thus all children of God, Abraham’s seed, and heirs of the promise. 


tion of time in mpd rod éAdSety, — but in 
its usual ethical meaning of ‘ destination 
for’ (‘in fidem,’ Vulg., Clarom.) ; com- 
pare Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. The 
clause is thus naturally connected with 
the finite verb, not with ovy«a. (‘ con- 
clusi, adeoque adacti ad,’ Beng.),—a 
construction certainly admissible (see 
exx. in Schweigh. Lex. Polyd. s, v. 
gvyka., or Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 
440 sq.), but open to this serious exe- 
getical objection, that faith is not yet 
represented as existing; see Meyer in 
loe, méAAovoav lot. 
&mox.] The unusual order seems in- 
tended to give prominence to uéAAovaar, 
and to present more forcibly the contrast 
between former captivity and subsequent 
freedom ; comp. Rom. viii. 18, mpds thy 
MéAAovoay ddtav amroKxadAvoSjva, where 
the future glories are set in strong con- 
trast to present calamities; see Fritz. in 
loc., Vol. 11. p. 148. 

24. S07 «| ‘So then,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulg., 
Clarom. ; consequence from the preceding 
statement; see notes, ch. ii. 13. 
wardaywyds] ‘pedagogue ;’ ‘ pedago- 
gus proprie notat eum qui puerum manu 
prehensum ad magistrum ducit,’ Schoett. 
(Hor. Vol. 1. p. 741), who remarks, how- 
ever, that the word was adopted by Rab- 
binical writers, but with some additional 
notions of care and guardianship: even 
among the Greek and Latin writers the 
idea of guardianship and also of strict- 
ness and severity is distinctly prominent ; 
see esp. the exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 
p. 186. The mere idea of leading to 
Christ (‘ vie dux’ [shaw-mdit], Copt., 


‘ductor,’ 72th.) must not, then, be re- 


tained to the exclusion of those of actual 
teaching (Arm., Auth.), tutelage, and 


disciplinary restraint. This pedagogic 
function of the law was displayed posi- 
tively, in warnings and threatenings ; 
negatively (the prevailing idea in this 
place), in awakening the conscience, and 
bringing a conviction of sin ; compare 
Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 5, p. 66. The patristic 
comments will be found in Suicer, The- 
saur. 8. Vv. vduos, Vol. 11. p. 9213; see 
also Petav. de Predest. x. 26. 1 sq. Vol. 
I. p. 464. eis Xpiotdy| ‘for 
Christ ;’ not temporal (&xpis 08 EAS Xp. 
see ver. 23), still less Jocal, ‘to Christ’ 
as a biidoxados (mpds toy Xp. amie, 
Theoph., comp. Chrys. ), as Christ would 
thus be represented under ¢wo offices, 
Teacher and (iva é« mior. Six.) Atoner, 
in the same verse. If any trace of a 
local meaning be retained in translation, 
e.g. ‘unto,’ Auth. Ver., it must be un- 
derstood of an ethical arrival (compare 
2 Cor. x. 14), as els with persons is not 
simply equivalent to mpdés, but involves 
the idea of mingling with and associa- 
tion; comp. Rom. v. 12, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. iva ék 
mlaot. Stkatws.| ‘to the intent that 
we might be justified by faith ;’ more 
distinct and specific explanation of the 
preceding eis Xpuordv, the emphatic éx 
miorews serving to suggest and enhance 
the contrast with the non-justifying and 
merely pedagogic yduos. On the proper 
force of the dixasodyv éx, see notes on ch. 
ii. 16. 

25. €raSotons Sé] ‘but now that 
(this) faith is come: contrast between 
the present freedom and the past ped- 
agogy ; eAdovens, nai, Tis tiaTews, Tis 
Térctov tvdpa Torovons, ovK ay ert einuev 
bird maidaywydv, Theoph. ‘The connec- 
tion is so close throughout this latter 


88 


TaLdayoryov ecper. 


Tews év Xpict@ Inco 7 


portion of the chapter, that it is difficult 
to subdivide it into paragraphs. Meyer, 
Conyb., al. place a paragraph after ver. 
22: it seems, however, more natural 
here, as ver. 23, 24, carry out the idea 
expressed in ouvérAeiwey, ver. 22. 
bird mwardsaywydyv| ‘under a peda- 
gogue. ‘The article is not here latent 
after the prep. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 
2 b, p. 114), but appears studiously 
omitted (so rightly Copt.), the words 
being in fact equivalent to ‘under tute- 
lage, ‘ unter Padagogengewalt,’ Meyer. 
26. rdvres yap] ‘For ye all ;’ con- 
firmation, e contrario, of the truth of 
the foregoing words; they were now 
not maides, but viol (‘filéé emancipati, 
remoto custode,’ Beng.), and that too 
not sons of Abraham merely (comp. ver. 
7), but sons of God; mpérepoy Weiter 
ért viobs emote: [n mitts Tov] "ABp.... 
vov 5& dropaiver tt Kal TOU Ocod, Chrys. 
The viol @eod, as Theod. Mops. well 
observes, includes the idea of teAedrns, 
which the preceding metaphor might 
serve to suggest. The reading 
&mravres adopted by Lachm. is not im- 
probable, but not supported by AB. 
Ths wlot. ev Xp. “Ino.] ‘through 
the faith in Jesus Christ ;’ so rightly 
Syr., Arm. (ed. Zohr.), Syr.-Philox., 
and Chrys. (ed. Field). Several com- 
mentators (Ust., al.: see Hofm. Schriftd. 
Vol. u. 2, p. 152) join év Xp. "Ine. with 
viol ®. éoré, on the ground that the 
words would be a superfluous addition 
to rioris, and that ver. 27 contains the 
amplification of the expression. But, 
independently of the awkwardness of 
adding a second modal clause to viol 
éore, the recurrence of the formula 
mioris év Xp. Ino. (Eph. i. 15, Col. i. 4) 
its grammatical accuracy (Winer, Gr. 
§ 20, 2, p. 123, notes on Eph. i. 15), 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. III. 26, 27. 


% crdvtes yap viol Qeod €ote dia THs Tio- 
4 \ > ‘ ? / 
dco. yap eis Xpiotov €BartioNnte, 


and the natural coherence of the words. 
all seem distinctly to suggest the simpler 
and less dislocated construction If the 
article had been inserted, we should then 
have two ideas conveyed, the latter of 
which would be explanatory of the 
former; ‘per fidem, eamgue in Chr. 
Jes. collocatam,’ see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, 
Vol. 1. p. 195. . 

27. dcor yap] ‘for as many as ; 
proof and confirmatory explanation of 
the preceding assertion. ‘The force of 
the particle is best explained by the 
Greek commentators, who refer it to viot 
@cov, and base the argument on the fact 
that Christ was the Son of God: évedv- 
cacse Tov Xp. Tov GANS viby TOU Oeod, 
éxetvov 5€ évdedumévar einxdtws viol Ocod 
xpnuaticere, Theodoret ; see also Chrys. 
in. loc. eis Xpeatdyv] ‘into 
Christ ;’ not ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom., but ‘in Christum,’ Beza (compare 
Copt. pichr); scil. ‘ut Christo addicti 
essetis,’ Schott, or more strictly, into 
communion with Him, and incorpora- 
tion in His mystical body. The mean- 
ing of eis with Barri(w appears twofold ; 
(a) ‘unto,’ object, purpose: Matth. iii. 
11, Acts ii. 38, see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, 
p- 354, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11. b. 3, p. 
220; (8) ‘énto,’ union and communion 
with: the context always showing 
whether it be of the most complete 
and most mystical nature, as here and 
Rom. vi. 3 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13), or, as 
in 1 Cor. x. 3, necessarily less compre- 
hensive and significant. We may, in 
conclusion, observe that the expression 
Barr. eis Td bvoua (Matth. xxviii. 19, 
Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, al.) is not identi- 
cal in meaning with Barr. év 7d dvdu. 
(Tholuck, Bettriige, No. 8, p. 49 sq.), 
but ever implies a spiritual and mystical 
union with Him in whose name the 


Cuap. III. 27, 28. 


GALATIANS. 


89 


Xpictov évedvcacYe. * ov Ew Lovdatos ode” EXXnp, ode en 
SovAos ode EXeUSEpos, OvK Evt Apoev Kal Nijrv' TavTes yap bpeis 


sacrament was administered; see esp. 
Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vt. p. 899. 
The meaning of Bamrifew twa ets Twa 
(ets 71) and Barr. eis Td dvoud Twos is 
discussed at length by Fritz. (Rom. vi. 
8, Vol. 1. p. 359 sq.), in opp. to Bindseil, 
Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 410 sq.,— but by 
no means satisfactorily, as he regards eis 
as only implying ethical direction (¢ ali- 
quem aque ita immergere ut ejus cogi- 
tationes in aliquem dirigas’), instead of 
that mystical incorporation which the 
passage seems certainly to convey. The 
patristic comments on this expression 
will be found in Suicer, Thes. Vol. 1. 
p. 624 sq., but are not sufficiently ex- 
act. Xprotdyv évedicacse|] 
‘ye put on Christ,’ scil. at your baptism ; 
boo yap cis Xpiotovy eBarrlaSnte ex Tov 
@cod éyervfSnre, Chrys. There appears 
here no allusion to Heathen (toga virilis), 
Jewish (whether at the High Priest’s 
inauguration, Deyling, Obs., Vol. 1m. 
p. 406 sq., No. 42, or in a cabalistic 
sense, comp. Schoettg. on Rom. xiii. 14, 
Vol. 1. p. 571), or, even, though very 
plausible, Christian customs (at baptism, 
Bingham, Antig. Book x11. 4. 1 8q.). 
From the instances Wetst. has collected 
on Rom. xiii. 14, it would appear that 
évdvecSai tia is a strong expression, 
denoting the complete assumption of 
the nature, etc., of another; e. g. Dion. 
Halicar. A. R. x1. 15.5 (tov Taprinov 
éxeivoy évduvdu.), Tac. Ann. xvi. 28. Thus 
év5. Xpirréy implies a union with Christ 
of so true and so complete a nature, 
that we are brought e’s ulay cuvyyévetav 
kal wlay idéav (Chrys.) with Him, and, 
as it is beautifully paraphrased by Calv., 
‘coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi 
geramus, atque in Ipso magis quam nobis- 
met Ipsis censeamur:’ comp. Bp. Barlow, 
cited by Waterl. Works, Vol. tv. p. 604, 
12 


and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. évd., Vol. 
I. p. 1112. For a good sermon on this 
text, see Donne, Serm. Lxxxvu. Vol. rv. 
p- 102 (ed. Alf.), and for a notice of the 
perversion of this text by heretics, Forbes, 
Instruct. x. 111. 32 sq., p. 448. 

28. ob Evi K.T.A] ‘There is among 
(such) neither Jew nor Greek ;’~ digres- 
sive statement of the practical result 
of the Xp. éved.: the new and holy 
‘habitus’ causes all other distinctions, 
whether of nation (compare Rom. x, 
12), condition, or even sex, to be wholly 
lost sight of and forgotten. The form 
ém is not for &eor, but according to 
Buttm. (see Winer, Gr. § 14. 2, p. 74), 
is the lengthened form of the adverbi- 
alized prep., to which the requisite 
person of the auxiliary verb must be 
supplied. This explanation has in its 
favor the similar use of mdépa, which can 
scarcely be called a contraction for mdp- 
eort; but against it those exx. where 
év and 2 are used in the same sentence, 
e.g. Plat Phed. 77 8, tows % nal &v 
iuiv Theet. 186 p, and, according to 
best reading, 1 Cor. vi. 5. In such 
cases, however, 2/7: would seem to mean 
little more than éorl (& éoriv, dwdpxet, 
Zonar. Lex. Vol. 1. p. 748), the prepo- 
sitional force being wholly lost; comp. 
Col. iii. 11. In either case the explana- 
tion of the present passage. remains the 
same; éml wAcloy Sinyetrat Thy ayaddérnta 
Tod @eod rou ye waot Thy tony 5édwxe 
Swpedy, Damase. Deyling illustrates this 
by reference to the various personal, etc., 
distinctions among the Jews; Obs. Sacr, 
Vol. 1 p. 312 sq., No. 64; Elsner (in 
loc.) notices also the customary exclu- 
sion of slaves from certain Heathen rites 
and temples, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 187. 
ipoev Kah SHA] ‘male and female ;’ 
‘masculus et femina,’ Clarom., but not 


90 


eis €oté ev Xpiot@ ‘Inood. 


GALATIANS. 


29 


Cuap. III. 29.—IV. 1. 


>] \ e lal lal x lal 
et O€ vyueis Xpictod, dpa Tov 


‘ABpaap orépua éoré, Kat érrayyedlav KANpovopor. 


As every heir is under 
tutelage, so before Clirist 


IV. Aéyw 5é, éf’ cov ypovev 6 KAnpove- 


came we all were under-bondage, but now have become free sons and inheritors. 


Vulg., Goth., Copt., al., which do not 
preserve the slight change of particle. 
While the alterable political and sociable 
distinctions are contrasted by ovd¢, the 
unalterable human one of sex is ex- 
pressed by nal; Mark x. 6, ard 5¢ apxijs 
xtlcews &poev Kal SiAv érolnoev aitos, 
compare 1 Tim. ii. 13. This latter dis- 
tinction is of course noticed not in its 
mere physical, but its ethical aspect, — 
the subordination of the wife to the 
husband (Olsh.). This, though an un- 
changeable law of our species when 
considered kata odpra, Eph. v. 22, al., 
is lost sight of in this éyyurépa mpds tdv 
Xpiorrby evwors, Chrys. TwAavTES 
y4p| ‘for ye all;’ proof of the preceding 
statement; T@ eva TUTov kal ulay mopphy 
evdedicda:, Thy Tov Xp., Gacum. The 
reading a&mayr. (Lachm.) seems an early 
gloss. efs] ‘one,’ ¢. e. one per- 
son; 7d eis av) Tod év cGua, Theodoret : 
compare Lucian, Toxar. 46 (cited by 
Wetst.), eis avSpwmros bvres oftw Biovpev. 
The concluding words éy Xpicr@ "Inood 
obviate all mistakes by defining in whom, 
and in whom alone, this union was fully 
realized. 

29. ef 5& buweTts] ‘But if ye; re- 
sumption of the argument after the 
short digression of ver. 28, the empha- 
sis resting slightly on jpe?s : ‘as ye, to 
whom I am speaking, and who have 
felt such doubts on the subject, have 
put on Christ, ye must be what He is 
(ver. 16), the seed of Abraham.’ 

The reading cis éore év X. "Inc. instead 
of Xpicrod, though found in DIEFG ; 
Clarom. .... Ambrst. is clearly an ex- 
egetical gloss. Tod "ABpadu 
onméppa| ‘Abraham’s seed ;’ tod ’ABp. 
being put forward with a slight empha- 


sis, and standing in correlation to Xpio- 
Tov to give force and perspicuity to the 
conclusion; ef 5€ duets éeore Xpiorov 
Hopph kal cua, eikdrws Tod “ABp. éoTe 
omrépua, Gicum.; comp. Theod. zn loc., 
and esp. Theod. Mops. (p. 126, ed. 
Fritz ) who has well elucidated the ar- 
gument. Kat ewayy. KAN- 
povdpmorl] ‘heirs according to, or by 
way of promise ;’ not by any legal ob- 
servances, The xAnpovoula is now stated 
absolutely; they were xAnpovduo, not 
merely of Abraham, nor even rijs éray- 
yerlas (Theod. Mops.), but simply of 
all that which was involved in it, salva- 
tion and the kingdom of Christ ; comp. 
Meyer in loc. The declaration of ver. 
7 is now at length substantiated and 
expanded by 22 verses of the deepest, 
most varied, and most comprehensive 
reasoning that exists in the whole com- 
pass of the great Apostle’s writings. 

The xal before kar. érayy., adopted by 
Rec. with FGJK; mss.; Syr. (both), 
Goth , AZth.; Chrys., Theod., is now 
rightly omitted by most critical editors. 


Cuapter IV. 1. Adyw 8€] ‘Now I 
say ;’ further and more explanatory 
proof of the assertion that we are heirs, 
suggested by the term xAnpovduo: (ch. 
v. 29), and the comparisons it involves ; 
comp. ch. v. 16, Rom. xv. 8, where the 
use of Aéyw 5€ in introducing a con- 
tinued explanatory argument rather than 
merely elucidating a statement or ex- 
pression that had preceded (comp. ch. iii. 
17, rodto 5 Aéyw, 1 Cor. i. 12, Aéyw Se 
tovto, 1 Cor. vii. 29, rodro 5é gnu), 
seems analogous to the present. 

6 kAnpovdpos| ‘the heir,’ %. e. ‘every 
heir ;> compare 6 peoirns, ch. iii, 20, 


Cuap. IV. 1, 2. 


GALATIANS. 


91 


f f . 
fos vipTris éotw, ovdev Stapéper SovdOV, KUpLOS TdvTMY wy, 


2 bp] \ e \ b] , > \ \ > / ” fal 
GXAG UTO ETLTpOTTOUS EOTLY KAL OLKOVOMOUS AXpt TI)S TPO EC- 
f 


Winer, Gr. § 18. 1, p. 97. There are 
some exegetical difficulties in this and 
the following verse, arising from the 
fact, vhat, while the nature of the com- 
parison (see Brown), as well as the 
words &xpt Tis mpoSeruias Tod mdtpos, 
would seem to imply that the father 
was alive, the expression ktpios mavTwv 
év, and the term émirpomous (but see be- 
low) might be thought to imply that he 
. was dead, The latter view is taken by 
Theodoret and the majority of ancient 
(silet Chrys.), with several modern com- 
mentators ; the former is ably advocated 
by Neubour, Bibl. Brem. Class. Vol. v. 
p- 40 (cited by Wolf), and also many 
recent expositors. Grotius endeavors to 
escape the difficulty by representing the 
father absent on travel; comp. Aélian, 
Var. Hist. 11, 26, cited below in note 
ver. 2, ‘The question, however, is really 
of little moment: St. Paul is engaged 
so entirely in the simple comparison of 
the circumstances of the nonage of the 
earthly «Anpovduos, with those of the 
nonage of believers who lived under the 
law (ver. 3), that the subordinate ques- 
tion of the life, death, or absence of the 
father of the kAnpovduos passes wholly 
out of sight; comp. Alf. in loc, 
vhmios| ‘an infant, a minor ;’ &vnBos, 
as opposed to épnBos, the technical term 
for one who had attained his majority ; 
see Smith, Dict. Antiq. s. v. pnB., and 
Reff. in Rost. u. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. p. 
1282. ‘There does not seem any suf- 
' ficient reason for departing from this 
usual view of yfmios (opp. to Bagge in 
loc.), or with Chrys., al , for introducing 
any reference to the ethical meaning of 
weakness of understanding, 

ovdty Siapéper SotaAov| ‘differs 
in nothing from a bond servant ;‘ ‘imo 
servo [raidaywys| subjectus est,’ Erasm. 


The very apposite quotation from Dio 


-Chrys., xv. p. 240, adduced by Wetst. 


in loc., is too long for citation, but is 
worth referring to. KUptos 
mnavtrwy &yv| ‘though he be lord of all ;’ 
concessive use of the participle; comp. 
Donalds. Gr § 621, Kriiger, Sprachi. 
§ 56. 13. 1 sq. It does not seem neces- 
sary for the sake of preserving the image 
of a living father to understand these 
words as prospective; the heir was the 
Kvptos (Grot. compares the use of ‘ herus 
minor’ in Lat. comedy), in right of 
birth and condition. 

2. éwitpdmous) ‘ overlookers, guar- 
dians.’ The latter is the usual meaning 
of the word in relation to children) 
(comp. Iseeus, Her. Cleonym. § 10, p. 
4 (ed. Schém.), roy xSioTov Tay oikelov 
énitpomoy Katadumeiv; ib. Her. Dice. § 
10; Plut. Lycurg. § 3, robs trav déppavav 
BaotAéwy émitpdmrovs), and that in which 
it appears to have been adopted by He- 
brew writers; compare Schoettg. Hor. 
Hebr. in loc., Selden, de Success. ch. 9, 
Vol. 1, p. 25. It seems here, however, 
better to adopt the more general mean- 
ing ‘overlooker, one entrusted with the 
charge of anything’ (comp. Aristoph. 
Eccl, 212, emirpdmois kad Tapia, Xen. 
CGcon. xit. 2, 6 év tots &ypois émitporos), 
and not to embarrass the passage with 
terms which might bring in irrelevant 
considerations (the father’s being alive 
or dead) into the present simple com- 
parison. We may, however, not un- 
suitably comp. Aélian, Var. Hist, 11. 16, 
éritp. kat Tod madds, Kal TOY XpNUdTov, 
where the context distinctly shows that 
the father was alive, though absent. 


olkovémous| ‘ stewards,’ aD? 
A 


| Kis [dominos domus! Syr., ‘ acto- 


w 


92 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 2, 3. 


pias Tov Tatpos. *° ovTws Kal nets, OTE Twev VHTTLOL, TO TA 


res,’ Vulg., Clarom. [compare Plin. Ep. 
111. 19], less accurately, Goth. fawragag- 
gam [Vorsteher] ; managers of the prop- 
erty of the xAnpovdyos, and standing in 
the same relation to his estate as the émi- 
tporo: did to his education and general 
bringing up; comp. Plutarch, Educ. § 7, 
dovAwy . . . Tods DE oixovduous, Tos 5é Sa- 
veistds. Most commentators not inaptly 
cite the case of Eliezer, Gen. xv. 2, comp. 
xxiv. 2; illustrations from Roman law 
(Bagge, al.) do not seem here in point, 
as the comparison is simple and general. 
Tis twposecuias| ‘the time appointed 
(beforehand),’ ‘preefinitum tempus,’ 
Vulg. The term mpoSecula, scil. dpa or 
jjuepa {for the distinction between these, 
see Bagge in loc.), is properly the term 
limited for bringing actions or prosecu- 
tions, the time fixed by the statute of 
limitations, ‘Tag der Verjaihrung:’ see 
Smith, Dict. of Antig. s, v., and exx, 
in Rost. u. Palm, Lez. s. v.; — thence, 
any pre-appointed time or day ; see the 
numerous exx. in Wetst. in loc., Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 279, Krebs. Ods. p. 322. 
In eccles. writers, mpoSecu. is sometimes 
used for the time assigned for repentance 
before excommunication ; see Bingham, 
Antiq. xvi. 2. 7. It may be ob- 
served that as the termination of nonage 
was fixed in Hebrew (13 years and a day 
for males; 12 years and a day for fe- 
males, Selden, de Success, ch. 9, Vol. 
II. p. 25), as well as Greek and Roman 
law, the dependence of the 4 mpoSeouia 
on the father, must be explained, — 
either (a) by the very reasonable as- 
sumption that St. Paul is here speaking 
theologically rather than juridically, — 
or (4) less probably, by the supposition 
that he was here referring, with techni- 
cal exactness, to an extended parental 
authority which the Galatians appear 
to have possessed; see Gottl. Gesch. d. 


Rom. Staatsverf. p. 109, 517 (cited by 
B. Crus.), and comp. Cesar, Bell. Gail. 
vi. 19. 

3. of rws kal hues] ‘So we also; 
application of the preceding statements ; 
kal, as usual in comparative ‘sentences, 
bringing into prominence and throwing 
a slight emphasis on the contrasted 
member of the comparison; see notes 
on Eph. v. 23. It has been doubted 
whether the jets are Jews (Chrys., 
Theod.), Gentiles (Aug.), or both | 
equally (Win., Mey.). The most nat- 
ural reference seems to be (a) to Jews, 
primarily and principally, as the nature 
of the preceding argument seems dis- 
tinctly to require; but also (4) seconda- 
rily, Gentiles, in accordance with the 
nature of the sweceeding argument. 

T& oToLtxeta TOV Kédopov] ‘the 
rudiments of the world.’ It is very 
difficult to decide on the exact mean- 
ing of these words. Taken separately, 
orotxetov is used in the N. T., both in 
a physical (2 Pet. iii. 10,12) and an 
ethical sense (Heb. v. 12). Kéowos, 
again, has, practically at least, three 
meanings ; physical (Matth. xxv. 34), 
collective (mankind, Joh. iii. 16), and 
ethical {1 Cor. ii. 12). From the com- 
bination of both words, a great variety 
of interpretations have arisen, all, how- 
ever, separable into two general classes, 
(1) Physical; elementa mundi, either, 
(a) festivals of Judaism, Chrysost. ; (6) 
Zabianism, August. ; or (c) abstractedly, 
religion in sensible forms, Neand. Plant- 
ing, Vol. 1. p. 465, Bohn. (2) Ethical ; 
rudimenta mundi, first, but not neces- 
sarily erroneous (comp. Aith.), princi- 
ples of religious knowledge among men, 
whether (a@) Jews (De W.); or (2) Jews 
and heathens (Meyer). Grammatical 
considerations seem in favor of (1); for 
otoueia, in a sense rudimenta, would 


Cuap. IV. 3, 4. 


a a a 5 J 
oToLYeia TOU KOTpOU Huey SedovA@pEVOL’ 


GALATIANS. 


93 


* Ore O€ HASEv TO TI}- 


fa) , , € | e a U 
p@pua Tov ypovou, eLaTréotetNev 0 Oeos Tov viov avToOv, yevowevov 


appear to require, as in Heb. v. 12, a 
gen. objecti, and not as here a gen. sub- 
Jectt (see Neander 7. ¢.); still xéopou 
need not be considered a pure gen. subj., 
the connection between the nom. and 
gen. being often somewhat lax; see 
Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 214 sq. Exe- 
getical considerations must be also ex- 
tended to ver. 9, and to Col. ii. 8, 20, 
where the same words occur. These we 
can only briefly notice. In Col. ii. 8, the 
parallelism with rapddoo1s trav avdpoTwv, 
seems so distinct, and so palpably in fa- 
vor of (2), as to outweigh the argument 
drawn by Schneckenb. from the sup- 
posed physical use of xéomos in ver. 20. 
The use of the term giAocopia seems 
also there to point slightly more to 
heathen rudiments (see notes in loc.), 
while on the contrary in Col. ii. 20, and 
below, ver. 9, the reference seems mainly 
to Jewish rudiments. All these 
conflicting views being considered, we 
seem here justified in deciding in favor 
of (2) generally ; assigning, however, to 
the words (as both jets and the nature 
of the argument require) a primary, 
but by no means exclusive reference to 
the Jews. For further notices of this 
doubtful expression, see Baur, Pawlus, 
p- 594 sq., and for a defence of the 
physical meaning, Schneckenburg. in 
Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 444 sq., and 
Hilgenf. Galat. p. 68 sq. The applica- 
tion to the ceremonial law will be found, 
Petav. de Predest. x. 23. 12, Vol. 1. p. 
456. dedovAwpmévorl tin a 
state of slavery ;’ the perf. pass. part. 
marking the permanent nature and con- 
tinuance of the dovAcia; comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 45. 1, p. 305. The verb fev may 
be regarded either as in union with 
SeSovA. and as forming a compound 
tense, or as in more immediate con- 


nection with i7b 7& or.: the latter is 
most probable, as forming the best par- 
allel to imdb émtpdmous éotiv; so dis- 
tinctly Copt., and perhaps Vulg., 
Clarom., ‘sub elementa eramus servi- 
entes ;’ see Meyer én loc. 

4. 7d mwAhpwua ToD xpdvov] 
‘the fulness of the time,’ z. e..the mo- 
ment which makes the time complete, 
answering to the &xp: tis mpoSeoulas 
Tov matpds, ver. 2; see Stier, Ephes. Vol, 
I. p. 203, and compare Usteri, Lehrbd., 
11. 1, p. 83. These words have been 
the subject of considerable discussion. 
Taken in its most general view mAfpwua 
has two meanings; (1) Active; 7b wAtpy 
moterv, implendi actio, not id quod implet, 
as Fritz. (on Rom, xi. 12) has satisfacto- 
rily proved against Storr, Opuse. 1. p. 
144, (2) Passive; either in the less 
usual sense (a) 7d quod impletum est, or 
the more common and regular sense (B), 
id quo res impletur ; compare 1 Cor. x. - 
26, Mark viii. 20. Hence 7d mAf- 
pwua tod xp. will seem to be ‘id quo 
temporis spatium impletur, se. expletur ;’ 
the idea being rather that of a temporal 
space (so to speak) filled up, as it were, 
by the flowing in of time; see Olsh. in 
loe., and comp. Herod. 111. 22, dydéKovta 
® grea (dns wAhpwua avdpt paxpdtator. 
Fritz., on the contrary, but with less 
probability, regards ‘rAfpwua as the ab- 
stract notion of the concrete idea mAf- 
pns, *temporis plenitas,’ i. q. ‘ plenum 
tempus ;’ see, however, his very valua- 
ble note, Rom. i. c. Vol. 1. p. 469 sq. 
The doctrinal meaning of this term is 
investigated at length in Hall, Bampt. 
Lect. for 1797, esp. Serm. vim. p. 211 
sq.; see also the good sermons on this 
text by Andrewes, Serm. vr Vol. 1. p. 
49, and Donne, Serm. ut. Vol. 1. p. 39 
(ed. Alf.). éfamdatetavcy] 


94 GALATIANS. 


> ’ ’ "SRN. RY BY \ Gc teh , Tae 
Ek YUVALKOS, YEVOMEVOY UTO VoLov, ° Wa TovS UTO vopov éLaryo- 


‘sent forth,’ ‘emisit, ex ccelo a sese,’ 
Beng.; comp. Acts vii. 12, xi. 22, xvii. 
14. On the doctrinal questions con- 
nected with this word, see Petav. Trin. 
vit. 1. 10. yevom. ex yu- 
vatkds] ‘born of a woman ;’ defining 
participial clause added to attest the 
pure manhood of Christ, and to obviate 
any misconception of the meaning of 
the clause that follows; comp. Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, p. 311 sq. No doctrinal 
stress is thus to be laid either on yuvairds 
(* absque virili semine,’ Est.), or on the 
prep. (7rd 5& ex uedAe... mapadynrovy 
Thy Kowwviay Tis piaews TOD TiKTOMEVOU 
mpos Thy yevvfjoacay, Basil, de Sp. Sanct. 
vy. 12; compare Theophyl. Geum ) ; 
yuvaixds being only used to mark our 
Lord’s true humanity, and é« having 
only its usual and natural ref. to the 
circumstances of birth; compare Matth. 
i. 16, John iii. 6, and see Rost. u. Palm. 
Lex. s. v. 1. 2, Vol. 1, p. 818, Winer, 
Gr. § 47. b, p. 327, 328. For a sound 
and striking sermon on this verse, and 
on the general relation of woman to 
man, see Jackson, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 226 
(Oxf. 1844). The reading yevvd- 
pevoy, (found in some cursive mss., 
Ath., Theod., al.), has every appearance 
of being an explanatory gloss. 
yevdmevov bd vopor| ‘born un- 
der the law,’ ‘natum inter Judeos legi 
Mos. obnoxios,’ Schott; second defining 
clause added to show that not only was 
Christ truly man (ev. 2 yuv.), but also 
a true member of the Jewish nation 
(yev. brd védu.), and standing in the 
same religious relations as all other 
Israelites; see Olshaus. and Turner in 
loc., and comp. Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 
1.p.13 (A.C L.). On the most suita- 
ble rendering of yevduevor, see notes to 
Transl, 

5. fva tovs bd vémorv étay.] 


Cuapr. IV. 4, 5. 


‘in order that He might ransom those 
under the law ;’ first gracious purpose of 
God's having sent forth his Son thus 
yevon. éx yuvax. and thus yevdu. md 
véuov, — the ransom of those who were 
under the same religious obligations as 
those under which our Lord vouchsafed 
to be born. The redemption was, as 
De W. (after Beng.) rightly maintains, 
not merely from the curse, but from the 
bondage of the law; comp. ver. 3. On 
the meaning of éfayop. see notes on ch. 
iii. 13. iva Thy vioved. 
&moA.] ‘in order that we might receive 
the adoption of sons ;’ second gracious 
purpose of God, resulting from the first, 
— the adoption of sons not only of Jews, 
but of all men (jets), of all those whose 
nature our Lord vouchsafed to assume. 
The first fva thus, by a kind of x:aopbds 
(Jelf, Gr. § 904. 3) found occasionally 
elsewhere in the Apostle’s writings 
(comp. Philem. 6), refers to the second 
participial member yevdu. bd vépor, 
while the second fva refers to the first 
and less circumscribed yevdu. é« -yuvat- 
xés. For examples of a double iva thus 
appended to a single finite verb, comp. 
ch. iii. 14, Eph. v. 26, Thy 
vioSealay] ‘the adoption of sons ;’ 
comp. Rom. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4, Eph. i. 5. 


The interpretation, ‘conditio fiorum,’ 


‘sonship,’ adopted by several commenta- 
tors (see Ust. tn loc. and Lehrb. 11. 1. 2, 
p. 186, note), both here and Rom viii. 
15, has been convincingly refuted by 
Fritz. Rom. J. ¢., Vol. mu. p. 137 sq. 
We were formerly in the light of ser- 
vants, but now have been adopted and 
are free sons. Neander traces a three- 
fold gradation in this adoption; (a) as 
existing but not appropriated; (5) as 
appropriated through faith in Christ; 
(c) as perfected by a full communion in 
his blessedness and glory; Planting, 


L.- 2 
~*) 
: 
Me ki 
t En se 
laa — 


Cuap. IV, 5, 6. 


GALATIANS. 


95 


ton, wa thy vioSeclay amroAadBapev. ° OTe 5é eote viol, éfa- 
¢ ? 


rn fal BT fal 
méatethev 6 Oeos To IIvedpa tov viovd avdtod eis tas Kapdias 


Vol. 1. p. 477 (Bohn). &mrod d- 
Bwpuev| ‘might receive.’ The special 
force of the prep. has been somewhat 
differently explained. Of the two more 
ancient interpretations (a), that of Chrys., 
KaA@s elev Gor. Secxvds dpetAouevny, 
though lexically admissible (see Win., 
de Verb. Comp. Fasc. tv. p. 13), does 
not harmonize with the context, as the 
viodecia is not here alluded to as the sub- 
ject of promise ; again (4), that of Aug., 
‘non dixit accipiamus sed recipiamus,’ 
though equally admissible on lexical 
grounds (opp. to Meyer; comp. Herod. 
I. 61. and see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
amd, E, and ib. s. v. aroAauB. 2. a.) is 
more than doubtful in point of doctrine, 
as the correct dogmatical statement, ‘ ut 
quod perdideramus in Adam .. . hoc in 
Christo reciperemus’ (Iren.; see Bull, 
State of Man, p. 492, Oxf. 1844) can 
only be applied to what Adam had 
before his fall, and not to a gracious 
gift which was not bestowed on him. 
It seems best then to fall back on the 
general local meaning of dad, and to 
regard the verb as hinting at receiving 
from an imaginary place where the 
things given might be conceived as 
having been laid up in store; ‘ droAapB. 
dicuntur imprimis illi, qui, que ipsis 
destinata et quasi reposita sunt, accipi- 
unt, Col. iii. 24, 2 Joh. 8,’ Winer, 7. ce. ; 
add Luke xvi. 25, dméAaBes Ta Gyadd 
gov, Which the context shows could 
scarcely receive any other interpretation. 

6. 6re BE x. 7. A.] ‘and as a proof 
that ye are sons,’ *quemadmodum au- 
tem’ [kamasa}, Aith., the 5¢ introducing 
with a faintly oppositive force the dem- 
onstration of the assertion. It is dif- 
ficult to decide whether é7: is here 
causal (* quoniam,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr.- 
Philox.) or, more probably, demonstra- 


tive (résev BijAov br1, Chrys., Theoph., 
Qicum., and by obvious inference Theod. 
and Theod, Mops.). Independently of 
the authority of the Greek commentators, 
which in such cases is very great, we seem 
justified by the context in adopting the 
latter view, as, on the one hand, the causal 
interpretation seems to interfere with the 
easy transition from the declaration of 
ver. 4, 5, to the consequence in ver. 7; 
and, on the other hand, the demonstra- 
tive Sr: seems to accord better with the 
emphatic position and the tense of éoré. 
The sentence is thus what is called 
brachylogical, ‘and as a proof that ye 
really are sons,’— a construction to which 
De W. and Alf. object, but which still 
seems perfectly correct and admissible; 
see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1, p. 546, Fritz. 
Rom. ii. 14, Vol. 1. p. 117, Liicke on 
1 John v. 9. The insertion of rod 
@cod after viol, in DEFG; Clarom., 
Demid., Tol., Goth., and Lat. Ff., seems 


‘an obvious explanatory addition. 


To Ilvetua tod viod airoid] ‘the 
Spirit of His Son,’ scil. the Holy Spirit 
(«Spiritus Christi quia per Christum 
obtinetur, Joh. xiv. 16,’ Grot.), here 
suitably thus designated in harmony 
with the preceding mention of our re- 
lation to God as sons (Ust.); compare 
Rom. viii. 9, where Mv. @cod and Mp. 
Xpiorod appear interchangeable. On 
the doctrinal significance of this passage 
—that it. is the ‘substantia’ and ‘ per- 
sona’ of the Spirit which dwells in the 
hearts of believers (1 Cor. vi. 19), comp. 
Petav. Trin. viu. 4. 6, Vol. m1. p. 459, 
and on the heart as the seat of the in- 
working power of God, Beck, Sceelené. 
§ 27, p. 107. In the following 
words Rec, reads iuay with BD?EJK ; 
mss.; several Vv. and Ff., but with 
slightly less probability than 7uéy, which 


GALATIANS. Cuap. IV. 6, 7. 


96 


nov, Kpavov ABRG 6 matip. * date odKéTt et SoUAOS GAA Vids" 
el 6€ vids, Kal KANpovomos Sia Oeod. 


7. 8:4 @cod] This reading, which Tisch. has adopted with ABC!(FG 8:4 @edv) ; 
17; Boern., Vulg., Copt.; Clem., Bas., Cyr., Did.; Ambr., Aug., Pel., Bed., 
Ambrst. (Lachm., Mey.), appears, on the whole, the most satisfactory. Fritz. 
(Opusc. p. 148) supports the Ree. on paradiplomatic considerations (Xp. and Oe. 
being, confused with one another, hence omission of 6:4 Xpiorod; then 8:4 Oe. by 
omission of Xp.), which seem somewhat precarious. In answer to the internal ob- 
jection of Usteri that the inheritance is never represented by St. Paul as coming 
5:2 cod (compare, however, ver. 5), it may be remarked, that @cod may fairly be 
taken in its widest sense, as including the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, just 


separately mentioned ; see Windischm. in Joc. 


is found in ACDIEG; many mss; 
Amit. (Flor.), Clarom., Ath. (2), and 
many Ff. and is adopted by the best 
recent editors. "ABBa 6 raTnhp] 
‘Abba father ;’ Mark xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 
15. In this solemn expression 6 rarhp 
(nom. for vocat., Winer, Gr. § 29. 2, p. 
164) does not seem appended to the 
Aramaic *ABBa as a mere explanation 
of it, ‘ Abba, id est, Pater’ (Beza), nor 
yet united with it to indicate the union 
of Jews and Gentiles (Hebraeum ver- 
bum ad Judzos, Grecum ad Gentes... 
pertinet,’ Aug. ; comp. Andrewes, Serm. 
Iv. Vol. 1. p. 60), but is appy. blended 
with it as making up the *solemnis for- 
mula’ of the early Christian prayers. 
The Aramaic title under which our 
Lord addressed his Heavenly Father 
was, probably, at a very early pe- 
riod (hence Mark 7. ¢.) united to the 
Greek synonym in reverent and affec- 
tionate remembrance of Him who had 
taught and enabled us truly to call God 
Our Father, and thence used as a single 
form in all more fervent addresses to 
God; compare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. 
p- 252, where instances are given of 
addresses to God in which Hebrew 
and Greek words are somewhat simi- 
larly united. Whether there is any 
allusion to the fact that, among the 
Jews, a freedman might, by addressing 
any one with the title Abba, prepare 


the way for adoption by him (Selden, 
de Success. ch. 4. Vol. 11. p. 15), seems 
very doubtful. 

7. dote x. 7. A.] ‘So then,’ ‘Conse- 
quently ; conclusion from the statements 
in the two preceding verses, dare with 
its usual and proper force denoting the 
‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antece- 
dentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 771. 
On the force of this particle with the 
indic. and infin., see notes on ch. ii. 138, 
and for its use with the imperative, notes 
on Phil. ii. 12. 
‘thou art no more, as thou wert when 
in bondage under rudiments of the 
world.’ Meyer finds a climax of per- 
son in a@moAdBwperv, ver. 6, éoré, ver. 6, 
el, ver. 7, the mode of address becoming 
more and more personal and individual- 
izing; for further exx. of this use the 
second person in more cogent addresses, 
see Rom. xi. 17, xii. 20, xiii. 4, xiv. 4, 
1 Cor. iv. 7, al, and comp. notes, ch. ii. 
18. ei 5é€ vids, kal KAn- 
povduos] ‘but tf a son (not a slave) 
then also an heir ;’ comp. Rom. viii. 17, 
ei 5¢ réxva, kal kAnpovduot. Both these 
passages must appy. be explained on the 
principles of the Roman, and not of the 
Hebrew law. According to the latter, 
only sons (legitimate, ‘ex concubinis,’. 
or ‘ex incestu,’ but not ‘ex ancillis et 
Gentilibus,’ Seld. de Succ. ch. 3) suc- 
ceeded to the inheritance ; the first-born 


ovKxeért ef] 


Cnap. IV. 8. 


How then can ye now turn 
back again to the bondage 
of rudiments as, alas! ye are doing? 


having double ; according to the former 
all children, male or female; ‘nec inter- 
est utrum naturales sint an adoptivi,’ 
Gajus, Com. Inst. 11. § 2 (cited by 
Fritz.). It is scarcely necessary to ob- 
serve that vids is not to be pressed, being 
simply, as Fritz. observes, in antithesis 
to SovAos: women are distinctly in- 
cluded in ch, iii. 28. The whole sub- 
ject is ably investigated by Fritzsche, 
Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 1483—149. 

8. &AA a] ‘Howbeit ;’ appeal based on 
the preceding statements, and involving 
a strong contrast between their past and 
present states. The adversative a&AAd 
has thus here no species of affirmative 
force (Ust.),— a meaning which, how- 
ever, may be justified, see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. u. p. 14, — but introduces an ex- 
planation of the words ob«ér: ef Kk. 7. A., 
by the very contrast which it states; 
‘now ye are free children of God, — 
then (before the time of your vioSecia) 
ye knew Him not, and were the bond- 
servants of demons.’ It need scarcely 
be added that rére does not refer to ver. 
3 (Winer, Schott.), still less is to be re- 
garded equivalent to mdAa (Koppe), but 
merely marks the period when they 
were not, as they now are, sons; ‘ quasi 
digito intento designat omne tempus 
quod ante vocationem Galatarum exie- 
rat,’ Grot. eiddtes| 
‘ignorantes, —an historic fact; con- 
trast 1 Thess. iv. 5, 7a wh ciddra roy 
@cdbv, where they are only so character- 
ized by the writer, and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 55. 5, p. 428 sq. It may be observed 
that with certain participles od regularly 
and formally coilesces, so as to express 
one single idea; see Gayler, Part. Neg. 
p. 287. éSovAcbaate| ‘were 
slaves ;” emphatic, and, as in ver. 9, in 
a bad sense. The proper force of the 

13 


> 
OUK 


GALATIANS. 


97 


8° AndXa TOTE pev ovK EidoTes Oeov edovdev- 


aorist, as marking an action that took 
place in and belongs wholly to the past, 
is here distinctly apparent; comp. the 
exx. in Kriiger, Sprachi. § 53. 5. 1, 
Scheuerl. Synt. § 32. 2, p. 331 sq., and 
for some excellent remarks on the use 
of the tense, Schmalf. Synt. d. Gr. Verb. 
§ 60 sq., and esp. Fritz. de Aor. Vi, 
Frankf. 1837. This passage has 
been pressed into the controversy re- 
specting dovAefa and Aarpela, and is 
noticed in Forbes, Instruct. vit. 1, p. 
331 sq. piaoer ph 
otgiv Seots| ‘which by nature are 
not gods ;’ vce being emphatic, and 
serving to convey an unconditioned de- 
nial of their being gods at all; comp. 
1 Cor. x. 20. The order in Ree. rots uh 
pice odor Seois [D3FGIK ; mss.; Syr.- 
Phil.; Chrys., Theod., al.] is much less 
expressive, as implying that the false 
gods were thought to be true gods, 
though not naturally so, and is decidedly 
inferior in external authority to that 
adopted in the text, which has the sup- 
port of ABCDI!E; 6 mss. ; Syr. (plural), 
Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Athan. (4), Nyss. 
(4), al., and is adopted by the best recent 
editors. On the meaning of oie 
‘substantially,’ ‘essentially,’ and the 
connection of the verse with the argu- 
ment for the divinity of Christ, see 
Waterl. Second Def. Qu. 24, Vol. 1. p. 
722. ah obdce is a subjective 
negation, and states the view in which 
they were regarded by the writer; see 
above, and comp. the numerous exx. 
cited by Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 428. 
The student must be reminded that ui 
with participles is the prevailing usage 
in the N. T,, so that while of with par- 
ticiples may be pressed, it is well to be 
cautious with regard to uf; see notes 
on 1 Thess, ii. 15, 


n~ 
TOtS 


98 


a JS a 
cate Tos ices 2) ovow Seois* 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 9, 10. 


* pov 6€ yvovtes Oceov, wadrov 


dé yvooSévtes td Ocod, ras éerictpéhete Tadw él Ta dodevi 
Pp vy) 

\ a 
kal TTwXa oToLXELa, ols Taw dvwrev Sourevew SédeTe; ” Hyuepas 


9. yvdévres Ody] ‘after having 
known God ;’ temporal participle here 
expressing an action preceding that 
specified by the finite verb ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 45. 1, p. 306, and notes on Eph. 
ii. 8, but transpose the accidentally in- 
terchanged words ‘subsequent to’ and 
‘ preceding.’ Olsh, finds a climax 
in eiddres, ywdvres, and yrwodSévres; the 
first, merely outward knowledge that 
God is; the second, the inner essential 
knowledge in activity; the third, the 
passive knowledge of God in love. The 
distinction between the two latter (see 
below) seems correct, but that between 
«if. and yy. very doubtful, especially 
after the instances cited by Meyer, viz. 
John vii. 27, viii. 55, 2 Cor. v. 16. 
BGAAoyv Bé] ‘imo vero,’ * vel potius,’ 
Rom. viii. 34; ‘ corrigentis est ut sepis- 
sime,’ Stalb. Plat. Symp. 173 EB: see 
exx. collected by Raphel, én doc. 
yvowodévres| ‘being known,’ ‘cog- 
niti,” Vulg., Clarom. [cognoti]; not 
‘approbati’ (Grot.), nor even acknowl- 
edged as His own’ (Ust., compare 
Ewald), still less ‘scire facti’ (Beza), 
— but simply, in the usual and regular 
meaning of the word in the N. T., 
‘known,’ recognized ;’ see 1 Cor. viii. 
3, xiii. 12, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 
3, p. 235. Before the time of their 
conversion, the Galatians were not 
known by God,—had not become the 
objects of His divine knowledge; now 
they were known by Him and endowed 
with spiritual gifts; airds éuas éreona- 
card, Chrys. The distinction drawn by 
Olsh. (above) between yvdyres, cognitio 
activa, knowledge, which must be, if 
genuine, preceded by yvwos., cognitio 
passiva, love,—hence the corrective 
pGdAdov 5é, — seems borne out by 1 Cor. 


Z. c. (on which see Beng.) ; comp. Neand. 
Plant. Vol. 1. p. 157, note (Bohn.). 

was] ‘qui fit ut,’ ‘how cometh it that ;’ 
see ch. ii. 14, émiotpepeTte 
wdAv] ‘turn back again ;’ ‘ converti- 


> 
mini iterum’ Vulg., Clarom., ~50Z 
> v . . . 
Anon [iterum conversiestis] Syr. ; 


madd not being the Homeric and Hesi- 
odic ‘retro’ (an idea involved in é7ui- 
otpépete, Matth. xii. 44, 2 Pet. ii. 22), 
but denuo, iterum, the more common 
meaning in the N. T.; see exx. in 
Bretsch. Lez. s. vy. The lapse of the 
Galatians into Judaism is thus repre- 
sented as a relapse into those croryeia 
among which Judaism was included: 
‘addy non rem eandem respicit sed 
similem,’ Glass. ap. Pol. Syn. in loc. 
Ta &odevy K.T.A.] ‘the weak and 
beggarly elements ;’ acSevi as having no 
power to justify or promote salvation, 
mrwxa as having no rich dowry of spir- 
itual gifts and blessings; compare Heb. 
vii. 18, and see Grot. in Joc, 
wmdAtv &vyweev| ‘again anew,’ ‘aftra 
jupana,’ Goth.; not pleonastic like 
mddw éx Sevrépov (Matth. xxvi. 42), 
éreita wera TovTo (John xi. 7), but ex- 
pressive of two distinct ideas, relapse to 
bondage and recommencement of its prin- 
ciples. The Galatians had been slaves 
to the ororyeta in the form of heathen- 
ism; now they were desiring to enslave 
themselves again to the ororxeia, and to 
commence them anew in the form of 
Judaism ; comp. ‘rursum denuo,’ Plaut. 
Cas. Prol. 33 (Wetst.), and see Hand. 
Tursell, Vol. 11. p. 279. 

10. 7uépas] ‘days,’ scil. Jewish Sab- 
baths, fasts, etc. (compare Rom. xiv. 5, 
6, Col, ii, 16); appy. emphatic, and not 


Cuap. IV. 10, 11. 


GALATIANS. 


va 


n Yuan \ \ ey. f ll in 
mTapatnpeiose Kal phvas Kat Kapovs Kal éviavtovs. ™ hoBodpuar 
Dpas, LHTwWS ELK) KEKOTTiaKa Eis Das. | 


improbably placed forward as marking 
what they observed with most scrupu- 
losity; see Alf. im loc. It, however, 
can scarcely be considered exegetically 
exact to urge this verse against ‘ any 
theory of a Christian Sabbath’ (Alf.), 
when the Apostle is only speaking of 
legal and Judaizing observances; see 
on Col. ii, 16. TapaTtnpetavxel 
‘Ye are studiously observing,’ compare 
JEth. tetagabu [where the Conjug. (1m. 
1, Dillm.) does not seem without its 
force] ; the force of the compound be- 
ing appy. ‘ sedulo’ (Meyer), not ‘ super- 
stitiose observatis’ (Bretsch.) — a mean- 
ing which the passages adduced, e. g. 
Joseph. Ant. ut. 5. 5, waparnpeiy ras 
éPdouddas, Cod. A. Relat. Tilat. (Thilo, 
Cod. Ap. p. 806), 7) odBBatoy maparn- 
peioSa, do not substantiate. It may 
be observed that the primary use of 
mapa in this verb is appy. /ocal, and by 
implication intensive, scil. — ‘standing 
close beside for the purpose of more 
effectually observing’ (compare Acts ix. 
24, and see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 720): the secondary force is 
more distinctly ethical, but appy. re- 
stricted to the idea of hostile observation 
(Mark iii. 2, Luke vi. 7, xiv. 1); com- 
pare Polyb. Hist. xvii. 3. 2, évedpedev 
kal maparnpeiv, and see exx. in Schweigh. 
Lex. Polyb.s. v., and in Steph. Thes. s. v. 
Vol. vi. p. 410. The punctuation 
of this verse is doubtful. Tisch. Mey., 
Alf., al., place a mark of interrogation 
after évavrovs, but appy. with some- 
what less contextual probability than 
the simple period (Lachm.); as in this 
latter case the verse supplies a natural 
verification of the statement implied in 
the preceding question, explaining t/s 
vs dovAclas tedmos (Theod.), and form- 
ing a natural transition to the sadder 


tone of ver. 11. To derive a hint merely 
from the use of the pres. tense that the 
Galatians were then celebrating a Sab- 
batical year (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. 
p- 286, note) seems very precarious. 

kKatpowvs| ‘seasons,’ tz. e. of the festi- 
vals; comp. Chron. viii. 13, rod avapé- 
pew Kata tas évtoAds Mwiioh ev Tots 
caBBdrus, Kal év rots unot, Kal ev rais 
€optais, Tpeis Kaipovs ToD éviavTod, and 
Lev. xxiii. 4. éviautouvs| 
‘ years,’ — the sabbatical years, and (ac- 


cording to the usual explanation) the 


years of Jubilee. These latter, Meyer 
asserts on the authority of Kranold (de 
Anno Jubil. p. 79), were never really 
celebrated ; contrast, however, the direct 
command in Lev, xxv. 5, and compare 
the distinct allusions to it in other places 
(e. g. Isaiah, lxi. 1, 2). Whether the 
year of Jubilee is here alluded to may 
be a matter of opinion; but that both 
before (opp. to Winer, RWB., Art. 
‘Jubeljahr,’ Vol. 1. p. 626) and after 
the captivity it was fully observed, there 
seems no sufficient reason to doubt; see 
Kitto, Bibi. Cyclop. Art. ¢ Jubilee,’ Vol. 
II. p. 162. 

ll. poBotpat bpas| ‘I am appre- 
hensive of you,’ ‘res vestre mihi timo- 
rem incutiunt,’ Grot.; definite and 
independent statement receiving its fur- 
ther explanation from what follows; 
comp. Col. iv. 17, BAémre thy diakoviay 
...s Wa avThvy wAnpois, and see notes 
in loc. ‘To regard this verse as an ex- 
ample of that kind of attraction, where 
a word, really belonging to the subordi- 
nate clause, is made the object of, and 
assimilated by the principal clause (Ust., 
Winer, Gr. § 66. 5, p. 552), does not 
seem grammatically exact, as in such 
cases the object of the former clause is 
nearly always the subject of the latter 


100 


Treat me now with reci- 
procity: you once despised 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 11, 12. 


2 TiveoSe ws eyo, OTL Kayo os tyes, 


me not even in my infirmity, but evinced towards me the deepest reverence and warmest love. 


(Scheuerl. Synt. § 49. 2, p. 507) e. g. 
Acts xv. 36, émoxePdyueda Tovs adcApovs 
.... mas %xovor: see exx, in Winer, 
i. c. and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 375. It 
will be best then, with Lachm., Butim., 
al. to place a comma after duds, and to 
regard uhmws x. T. A. aS a Separate, ex- 
planatory clause. BAT wes— 
kexotiaka] ‘lest haply I have (actu- 
ally ) labored in vain :’ ‘uh etiam indica- 
tivum adjunctum habet, ubi rem a nobis 
pro vera habert indicare volumus,’ Herm. 
Viger, No. 270; see also Winer, Gr. § 
56. 2, p. 446, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 
129, and notes on ch. ii. 2. Chrysost., 
not having appy. observed this idiom, 
has unduly pressed @oBodua and phres, 
and implied nearly a contrary sense ; 
ovdérw, pnaotv, e&éBn 7d vavdyiov, GAN 
&rt Toy XElava TodTO wDdivovta BAr€Tw; 
contrast Theod., weuvnuévos pev Tav 7é- 
voy, Tov 5 Kapmdy ovx dpar. eis 
i pas] ‘upon you ;’ not ‘in vobis,’ Vulg., 
Clarom., Arm , but ‘ propter vos,’ A&th., 
or more exactly, ‘én vos, emphatica lo- 
cutio,’ Beng.; compare Rom. xvi. 6, 
éxotviagev eis judas. ‘The meaning of eis 
(‘looking towards,’ Donalds. Crat. § 
170) is thus not so much simply ethical, 
‘in reference to,’ and hence ‘for you’ 
(De W.),— this being more naturally 
expressed by a dat. commodi (Ecclus. 
xxiv. 34),— as ethically-doca/, * upon 
you,’ Auth.; comp. Bernhardy, Syn. 
v. 10, p. 217: the Apostle’s labor was 
directed to the Galatians, actually 
reached them, and so had passed on to 
them. 

12. yiverSe ws éyd} ‘Become as 
I am;’ affectionate appeal calling on 
them to treat their Apostle with reci- 
procity (see below), and reminding them 
of their former love and reverence for 
him. Sti Kaye as bpeis] 
‘since I have become as ye are ;’ dis- 


suasive from Judaism urged on the 
ground of his own dereliction of it; 
comp. 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21. The exact 
sentiment conveyed by these words has 
received several different explanations. 
Of these (a) that of the Greck expos- 
itors — ‘ I was once a zealot for Judaism, 
as ye now are’ (tavTa mpbs robs ef *Iov- 
daiwy, Chrys.) — is open to the objection 
that f#unv (‘fui, nec amplius sum’) 
would have thus seemed almost a neces- 
sary insertion (Mey.); comp. Just. ad 
Grec. 5 (Wetst.), yiveoSe ds eyd, Srt 
Kayo Runv as bueis. Again (b) that of 
Bengel, Fell, al., that it is only a scrip- 
tural mode of expressing warm affection 
(1 Kings xxii. 4), ¢ e. ‘love me as I 
love you,’ is certainly not in harmony 
with the use of yiveode, and still less 
with the context, where app ehension 
(poBotua duds) rather than dove is what 
is at present uppermost in the Apostle’s 
thoughts. It seems best then, (c) with 
Fritz., De W., and most modern expos- 
itors, to regard the clause as urging a 
course of reciprocity on the part of the 
Galatians corresponding to that which 
had been pursued by the Apostle; ‘ be- 
come free from Judaism like me, for I, 
though a native Jew, have become (and 
am) a Gentile like you,’ ‘I am ois avé- 
pots @s Bvouos (1 Cor. ix. 21) now, though 
meptocorépws (nrwrhs x. 7. A. (ch. i. 14) 
then ;’ see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
223 (Bohn), and Froetzsch. Opuse. p. 
232 sq., where the passage is fully dis- 
cussed, &SerA pot Séopae 
ip av] ‘brethren, I beseech you ;’ earnest 
entreaty (‘verba mepiradi,’ Grot.) be- 
longing not to what follows, — though 
so taken by Chrys., al., and all the an- 
cient Vv, — but with what precedes, as 
the 5énors is in the first and not in the 
last portion. This passage is curious as 
one in which the best ancient, and the 


Cnap. IV. 12, 13. 


adeddot, Séowat tuar 


GALATIANS. 


ovdéy pe HoLKnoOAaTE 


B oidatre Se OTL 


? fel a , 
ov doSéveay Ths capkos eimyyedcdwmv ipiv TO TporTepor, 


best modern interpreters, are, as happens 
but very rarely, in direct opposition to 
each other. ovdév me HOLKh- 
cate| ‘ye injured me in nothing; al- 
lusion to their past behavior as a reason 
and motive why they should now accede 
to the entreaty just urged; ‘ye did not 
injure me formerly, do not injure me now 
by refusing to act as I beseech you to act.’ 
The connection is thus, as the parallel 
aorists Wiixhoare, ekovdevhoare, ekewrv- 
gare, seem distinctly to suggest, very 
close with what follows, ver. 13 and 14 
(which really make up a single period) 
forming a sort of antithetical member 
(see below) to the present clause, and 
the aor. referring to the Apostle’s first 
visit. The usual interpretation 
‘there is nothing personal between us’ 
(SnA@v Ste ob uloous odd ExSpas jv 7a 
cipnueva, Chrys.) is both exegetically 
untenable (there was no @y$pa in what 
he had said but the reverse), and gram- 
matically precarious as implying in 
ndixkhoare either the force of a present 
or perfect. ‘The interpr. reproduced by 
Rettig, Stud. u. Krit, 1830, p. 109, ‘ye 
have not injured me, but Christ’ (¢ nihil 
me privatim lsistis,’ Grot.), implies an 
emphasis on we which does not seem to 
exist (ovdév is surely the emphatic word), 
and equally tends to infringe on the force 
of the aorist. 

13. of8are Sé] ‘but ye know,’ 
‘scitis potius ;’ opposition, not so much 
of clauses (this would be ov« — aaAad, 
compare Chrys.), as of the sentiments 
conveyed in the preceding clause and 
in the two verses which here follow: 
‘when I first came among you, and that 
under trying circumstances to you, far 
from wronging me, ye received me as 
an angel of God.’ 60 aodseé- 
veltav THS GapKds] ‘on account of 


weakness of the flesh; t. e. on account 
of some sickness or bodily weakness, 
which caused the Apostle to stay longer 
with the Galatians than he had origi- 
nally intended, and of which we know 
nothing beyond the present allusion: 
see, as to lexical usage, Winer, Gr. § 
49. c, p. 356, Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 
I. p. 197, and, as to the historical proba- 
bility, Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 30, 
and Conyb, and Hows. S¢. Paul, Vol. 1. 
p- 294 (ed. 1). Though, on the 
one hand, it may admitted, that the 
line of demarcation between 8: with 
the gen. and with the accus. is occasion- 
ally so faint that, in some few passages 
(esp. with persons), an interchange 
seems really to have taken place (sce 
exx. in Steph. Thes. s. v., collected by 
Dindorf, and in Bretsch. Lex. s. v., — 
but except Heb. v. 13, Rev. iv. 11, and 
appy- Rev. xii. 11), still in the present 
case there seems nothing so irreconcila- 
ble with the context (Peile, Bagge), or 
so improbable in itself as to lead us to 
adopt either of the two only possible 
(?) alternatives, (2) an enallage of case 
(Ust., al.), or (6) a temporal use of dd, 
scil. ‘during a period of sickness.’ To 
the first of these there is the great ob- 
jection that no certain instance has yet 
been adduced from the N, T., — neither 
John vi. 57 (see Liicke im Joc.) nor 
Phil. i. 15 (see notes im Joc.) being exx. 
in point; and to (6) the equally valid 
objection that this species of temporal, 
or, more correctly speaking, local mean- 
ing, é. g. 51a vera, comp. dia wévTov, did 
ordua, etc., is only found in poetry, and 
that rarely Attic; compare Bernhardy, 
Synt. v. 18, p. 236, Madvig, Gr. § 69. 
We seem bound then to maintain the 
simple meaning of the words, and to 
refer to our ignorance of the circum- 


GALATIANS. Cuap. IV, 14. 


102 
14 eee \ co~A ? a / > 3 , 

kal Tov Teipacpov buav ev TH capKki pov ovK éEouSevijcate 
ovdé eferrtucate, GANA wos ayyehov Deod édéEacdé pe, os Xpic- 


14. Sudv] So Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 2) with AB(C? adds riv)DIFG; 17. 89. 
67** .... Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Cyr., Hieron., Aug., Ambrst.,; Sedul. (Meyer, 
Bagge). Tischendorf (ed. 2) reads wou tov with D°EJK ; appy. great majority of 
mss.; Syr.-Phil. (appy. Syr., Goth.), Arm.; Chrys., Thdrt., Dam., Cicum. (Rec., 
Scholz, Fritz. om. pov, Alf.). Independently of the preponderance of external 
authority, the change from the easier to the more difficult reading seems so very 
probable, that, in spite of the internal objections of Fritz. (Opusc. p. 245 sq.), we 
can here scarcely hesitate to adopt the reading, though not the punctuation (see 


note), of Lachmann. 
tinctly advocates judy. 


stances (Green, Gr. p. 300) any diffi- 
culties the expression may appear to 
involve. 7s mpdrepov may 
be translated either ‘formerly’ (Deut. 
ii, 12, Josh. xi. 10, Joh. vi. 61, ix. 8), 
or ‘the first time’ (mpdrepov, Heb. iv. 6, 
vii. 27). The latter is preferable; for, 
as Meyer observes, the words would be 
surperfluous if St. Paul had been only 
once. Still no historical conclusions can 
safely be drawn from this expression 
alone; see Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 
30, 277. 

14. roy weitpacudy buar| ‘your 
temptation, scil. ‘your trial, which 
arose, or might reasonably have arisen, 
from the bodily infirmity on account of 
which I ministered among you;’ év T7 
capt gov coalescing with, and forming 
an explanatory addition to the otherwise 
seemingly ambiguous 7dv meipacu. du@r 5 
comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, 4 5 mapovcia tod 
cépmaros, dosevhs, Kal 6 Adyos eEoudevn- 
pévos, and see Mill (Append. to N. T.), 
p. 51. The objection to this interpreta- 
tion, founded on the absence of the art. 
before évy 77 capki mov (Riick.), is here 
not valid, as meipaew ev rivet (compare 
Ecclus. xxvii. 5) is appy. an admissible 
construction ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 
123, and notes on Eph.i.15. Lachmann 
places a period after nod, and connects 
Tov meipacu. dy. With ver. 13; but this 
does very little to remove the difficulty 


Mili (Append, p. 51) retracts his former opinion, and dis- 


in the former part of this verse, and 
makes the latter part intolerably harsh 
and abrupt. éfermricute| 
‘loathed,’ ‘respuistis,’ Vulg., Clarom., 


© az) [abominati estis] Syr. : ‘plus est 


éxmtvew Quam éfouseveiv, hoc enim con- 
temptum, illud et abominationem sig- 
nificat,’ Grot.; see Kypke, Observ. Vol. 
11, p. 280. Of the compounds of rrvw, 
those év and é« are only used in the 
natural, and not, aS katamt., Siamrt., 
a&momt., in the metaphorical sense; see 
Lobeck, PAryn. p. 15 sq. Probably, as 
Fritz. suggests, éxmr. was here used 
rather than the more common amorr. by 
a kind of alliteration after é f oudevqoare, 
‘non reprobastis aut respuistis,’ more esp. 
as a repetition of the same prep. in com- 
position appears to be an_ occasional 
characteristic of the Apostle’s style; 
compare Rom. ii. 17, xi. 7. De Wette 
feels a difficulty in éfoud. and éfemrr. be- 
ing applied to me:paouds on the part of 
the Galatians. Yet surely, whether 
referred to St. Paul or to the Galat., 
the expression is equally elliptical, and 
must in either case imply despising that 
which formed or suggested the me:pacpds. 
@s Xpiatrdyv ‘Incodyr] yea) as 
Christ Jesus; climactic, denoting the 
deep affection and veneration with 
which he was received; comp. 2 Cor. 
vy. 20; the Galatians received the Apos- 


Cuap. IV. 15. 


GALATIANS. 


103 


tov Incovv. © tis ody 6 paxapiopos bwav; papTup® yap wtyiv 


tle not only as an angel, but as One 
higher and more glorious (Heb. i. 4), 


even as Him who was the Lord of 
angels. 
15. ris ody] ‘Of what kind then,’ 


scil. jv [inserted in DEK(nFG): mss. ; 
Chrys.]; ‘qgualis (not quanta), h. e. 
quam levis, quam inconstans, ¢gétur 
erat,’ Fritz.; sorrowful enquiry, expres- 
sive of the Apostle’s real estimate of the 
nature of their waxapiouds ; ofxeTat, ard- 
AeTo* KAAS OvK aropnyduevos, GAAA BV 
épwrtcews evdeitduevos, ‘Theod. Mops. 
If mod be adopted, for which there is 
greater external authority [ABCFG; 
6 mss.; Boern., Syr. Vulg., Copt., Arm. 
al.; Dam., Hier. al.], but which seems 
to bear every appearance of having been 
a correction (rd ris dvti rod Tod TéSerkev, 
Theod.), then éo7ly must be supplied, 
and ovy taken in its ‘vis collectiva,’ 
whereas in the present case, what has 
been called the vis reflexiva (‘takes up 
what has been said and continues it,’ 
Donalds. Crat. § 192) is more apparent ; 
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 719, and 
notes on Phil. ii. 1. Makapto- 
ués bua@v] ‘the boasting of your 
blessedness,’ ‘beatitatis vestre predica- 
tio,” Beza; the Galatians themselves 
being obviously both the parapi(ovres 
(not St. Paul and others, GEcum., comp. 
Theoph.) and the paxapiCduevor: see 
Rom. iv. 6 (where Aéye: Toy paxaptopdv 
= paxapi¢e), and compare Fritz. in doe. 
The word is occasionally found in ear- 
lier writers (e. g. Plato, Rep. 1x. 59 p, 
Aristot. Rhet. 1. 9. 4) and is of common 
occurrence in the Greek liturgies; see 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 290 sq. 
6PSarApnovus tbyuav) ‘your 
eyes,’ ‘oculos vestros,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; 
not * your own eyes,’ Auth. (robs iSious 
dpSaduovs), as the article and pronoun 
are found in the N. T. constantly asso- 
ciated with 6~%., where no emphasis is 


TOUS 


intended ; compare Joh. iv. 35, and see 
the numerous exx. in Bruder, Concord. 
s. v. p. 667. All inferences then from 
this passage that the doSévem of the 
Apostle was a disease of the eyes, are 
in the highest degree precarious; see 
Alf. in loc. é~opviarvTes] 
‘having plucked out,’ ‘eruissetis et de- 
dissetis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; participle ex- 
pressive of an act immediately prior to, 
and all but synchronous with that of 
the finite verb; comp. Hermann, Viger, 
No. 224. That the verb étopirrew 
(‘usgraban,’ Goth.) is a ‘verbum so- 
lemne’ (Mey.) for the extirpation of 
the eye (1 Sam. xi. 2, Herod. vir. 116, 
etc.) may perhaps be doubted, as éxxdz- 
Te dpaadudy is used in cases apparently 
similar (Judges xvi. 21, comp. Lucian, 
Toxaris, 40), though more generally 
applicable to the simple destruction of 
the organ; see Demosth. 247. 11, Aris- 
toph. Nub. 24 (AfSw), Plutarch, Lycurg. 
11 (Baxtnpia). The Greek vocabulary 
on this subject is very varied; see the 
numerous synonymns in Steph. Thes. 
8. V. dpSadrpuds. éddnare] ‘ye 
would have given; the &y [Rec. with 
D*EJK; mss.] being rightly omitted 
with great preponderating evidence [ AB 
CDIFG; 2 mss.]; comp. John xv. 22, 
xix. 11. This omission of the article 
has a ‘rhetorical’ force (Herm)., and 
differs from the past tense with ty, as 
marking more definitely the certainty 
that the event mentioned in the apodo- 
sis would have taken place, if the re- 
striction expressed or implied in the 
protasis had not existed; see Herm. de 
Partic. tv, p. 58 sq., Schmalfeld, Syné. 
§ 79, p. 185. Whether this distinction 
can always be maintained in the N. T. 
is perhaps doubtful, as the tendency to 
omit éy in the apodosis (especially with 
the imperf.) is certainly a distinct fea- 
ture of later Greek; see Winer, Gr. § 


104 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 16, 17. © 


dre et Suvatov Tors dpSarpovs tuaov eLopvEavtes av edwxaré por. 
lw’ iote €vyS0C | Saeed sf iAnsev a a 
ySpos buoy yéyova adynYevov tyiv ; 


Your false teachers only 
court you for selfish ends: 


“ Znrovow was ov Karas, adda 


and ye are fickle. Would that I were with you, and could alter my tone. 


42, 2, p. 273, and comp. Ellendt, Lez. 
Soph. s. v. x. 1, Vol. 1. p. 126. 

16. cre] ‘So then?’ ‘Ergo?? 
Vulg., Clarom., consequence (expressed 
interrogatively) from the present state 
of things as contrasted with the past, — 
‘so then, as things now stand, am I 
become your enemy?’ ovx dpeis eore 
of wepiémovtes Kal Sepamevoytes, kal TAY 


bpSaruav Tyudrepoy wyovtes; Th Tol- 


vuv yéyove; modev h exSpa, Chrys. 
The consecutive force of écre is more 
strongly pressed by Meyer, who accord- 
ingly connects the particle with the 
interrogation tis ody pakap., of which 
it is to be conceived as expressing the 
special consequence, ‘is it in consequence 
of the unstable nature of your axap., 
that,’ etc., — but this seems to involve 
the necessity of regarding paprup® yap 
kK. T. A. aS parenthetical, and seems less 
in accordance with the context than the 
general and more abrupt reference to 
present circumstances; see De Wette 


in loc. The use of écre with in- 
terrog. sentences is briefly noticed by 


Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 776. 

€xSpos tuadv yévyova) ‘am I be- 
come your enemy,’ t. e. ‘ hostile to you,’ 
jas,s 22 [dominus inimicitize] Syr. 
(both), ‘ inimicus vobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
‘ fijands’ [Feind], Goth., Copt., d&th., 
Arm., — nearly all regarding éx3pbs as 
used substantively, and appy. actively, as 
in most of the languages above cited there 
are forms which would have distinctly 
conveyed the passive meaning. This 
latter meaning is adopted by Mey., Alf,, 
al., and is not only grammatically ad- 
missible (@xSpos, as the gen. shows, act- 
ing here as a substantive), but even 


contextually plausible, as the opposition 
between the former love of the Galatians 
and their present aversion would thus 
seem more fully displayed. Still as the 
active meaning yields a good sense, and 
is adopted by most of the ancient Vv., 
and as there is also some ground for 
believing that 6 éxdpds &vSpwmos (Clem. 
Recogn. 1. 70, 71, ‘ille inimicus homo’) 
was actually a name by which the Ju- 
daists designated the Apostle, the active 
meaning is to be preferred; see Hilgenf. 
Clem. Recogn., p. 78, note, Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 277. &Ansetvwr| 
‘by speaking the truth,’ scil. ‘ because I 
speak the truth ;’ ov« ofda GAA}y aitiay, 
Chrys. ‘To what period does the par- 
ticiple refer? Certainly not (a) to the 
present Epistle, as the Apostle could 
not now know what the effect would 
be (Schott); nor (5) to the jirst visit, 
when the state of feeling (ver. 15) was 
so very different, but (c) to the second 
(Acts xviii. 23), when Judaism had 
probably made rapid advances; see 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 277. No objec- 
tion can be urged against this from the 
use of the present (imperf.) participle, 
as the action was still lasting; see 
Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 304, Schmalfeld, 
Synt. § 202, p. 406. 

17. (nAovdorv by.] ‘they are pay- 
ing you court,’ scil. they are showing 
an anxious zeal in winning you over 
to their own party and opinions; con- 
trast between the honest truthfulness of 
the Apostle towards his converts, and 
the interested and self-seeking court 
paid to them by the Judaizing teachers, 
For an example of a similar use of 
(nAobr (* sich eifrig um Jem. kiimmern, 
Rost. u. Palm, Lez. s. v.),— here 


Cnap. IV. 18. 


exkrNeLoar Upas 
neither exclusively in its better sense 
(2 Cor. xi. 2) nor yet in its worse 
(Acts vii. 9; compare Chrys.), but 
in the neutral meaning of ‘paying 
court to’ (‘studiose ambire,’ Fritz.), 
—see Plut. vi. 762 (cited by Fritz.), 
bmd xpelas Td mp@Tov EmovTat Kal (ndod- 
aw, totepoy 5& Kal pdovorr. 

&AAX CxKACcToa K.T. A.) ‘nay, 
they desire to exclude you;’ they not 
merely follow the positive and less dis- 
honorable course of including you 
among themselves [Syr. reads éy«a., 
but appy. only from mistake] but the 
baser and more negative one of exclud- 
ing you from others to make you thus 
court them. The omission of a gen. 
after éxxa. (see Kypke, Obs. u. 181) 
makes it difficult to determine the ob- 
jects from which the false teachers 
sought to exclude those whom they 
affected, and has caused the ellipsis to 
be supplied in various ways; e. g. 77s 
TeAclas yvooews (Chrys.), ‘a Christo et 
fiducid ejus’ (Luther), ‘ab aliis omni- 
bus’ (Schott), * e circulis suis,’ ¢. e. ‘by 
affecting exclusiveness to make you 
court them’ (Koppe, comp. Brown), — 
the last ingenious, but all more or less 
arbitrary. The only clue afforded by 
the context is the position of airods, 
which suggests a marked personal an- 
tithesis, and the use of éxxAetoam, which 
seems more naturally to refer to num- 
bers or a community (Mey.) than to 
anything abstract or individual. 
Combining these two observations, we 
may perhaps with probability extend 
the reference from St. Paul (ed. 1, 
Fritz.) to that of the sounder portion of 
the Church with which he in thought 
associates himself, and from which he 
reverts back again to himself in ver. 18. 
The moment of thought, however, rests 
really on the verb, not on the objects to 

14 


GALATIANS. 


Serove, 


105 


iva avrovs fnoore. 
which it may be thought to refer. ‘The 
Galatians were courted, and that od 
KaA@s, in every way}; direct proselytiz- 
ing on the part of these teachers (if 
they had been sincere in their convic- 
tions) might have worn a semblance of 
being xaAdv ; their course, however, was 
rather (a@AAa) indirect, it was to dsolate 
their victims, that in their isolation they 
might be forced to affect those who thus 
dishonestly affected them, *AAAd thus 
preserves its proper force, and becomes 
practically corrective ; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. u. p. 2, 3, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 
Il. p. 35. The reading fuas which 
has still some few defenders (Scholef. 
Hints, p. 96, comp. De W.) appears to 
have been a conjecture of Beza. ‘Though 
said to have been since found in a few 
mss., the assertion of Scholz, ‘ judas e 
codd. recent. fere omnibus’ is a com- 
plete mis-statement. (nrAovre| 
‘in order that ye may zealously affect 
them ;’ purpose of the (nAodow ob Karas, 
va not being adverbial (‘ubi, quo in 
statu,’ Fritz., Mey.), but the simple 
conjunction, here as also in 1 Cor. iv. 6, 
associated with the indic., per solecis- 
mum; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. p. 259, 
and Green, Gr. p. 73, who calls atten- 
tion to the fact that both soloecisms ap- 
pear in a contracted verb, where they 
might certainly have more easily oc- 
curred. WHilgenfeld cites as a parallel 
Clem. Hom. x1. 16 (read 6), tva irijpxev, 
but the preceding clause, ef SéAeTe avrdy 
motjoat, seems, structurally considered, 
in effect equivalent to ei émroincey, and 
imfipxev only the imperf. ‘in re irritd 
vel infectd,’-— a usage appy. not fa- 
miliar to this expositor (see p. 131, and 
comp. notes on ch, ii. 2), but perfectly 
regular and idiomatic; see Madvig, 
Synt. § 181, Schmalfeld, Syné. § 143, p. 
294. It may be remarked that the 


106 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 18, 19. 


a a \ \ , 
* «adov S€ To Sprodo Sat év KaN@ TavtoTe, Kal pH povov ev TO 
Tapeival we mpos vuas. ™ Texvia pov ods Tadw wdivm aypis 


Mss. and mss. (219** [(nA@re], only ex- 
cepted) are unanimous in the indic., and 
that all the ancient Vv. appear to have 
regarded iva as a conjunction, 

18. tardy 8& Td CnAodaoSar 
x. 7. A.] ‘But it is good to be courted in 
a good way at ali times; contrasted 
statement of what it is to be courted in 
a good and lasting manner. There is 
some little obscurity in this verse owing 
to the studied and characteristic mapovo- 
pacia (compare Winer, Gr. § 68. 1, p. 
560) which marks the terms in which 
it is expressed. As the explanations of 
the verse are somewhat varied, we may 
perhaps advantageously premise the fol- 
lowing. limitations : —(1) All interpre- 
tations which do not preserve one uni- 
form meaning of ¢mAdw in both verses 
(e.g. Riick., and even De W. and Fritz.) 
may be rejected: from which it would 
seem to follow that évy kaA@ does not 
point to the sphere of the (mAotcSa, in 
the sense of the virtues which called 
out the feeling (ém) tH TeAcidryT1, The- 
oph., compare De W.), — as this would 
practically cause (mAodv to pass from its 
neutral meaning ‘ambire,’ to the more 
restricted ‘admirari,,— but is to be 
regarded as simply adverbial (compare 
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8.b, p, 211), and 
perhaps as varied only from the preced- 
ing «ad@s to harmonize structurally 
with the following ey 7g mapeivat. (2) 
(nAota at must be regarded as pass. 
(comp. Syr.), not as a middle, equiv. in 
sense to active (Vulg., Clarom., Goth.), 
as no evidence of such a use of (nAotoda 
has yet been found. (3) The object of 
(nAotosa must be the Galatians, as in 
ver. 17, and not (Ust.) St. Paul. (4) 
évy ™@ mapetyvaz is not to be trans- 
lated prospectively (Peile), but must 
mean simply *‘ when I am with you.’ 


Thus narrowed, then, the meaning 
would seem to be, ‘But it is a good 
thing to be courted, —to be the object 
of ¢jAos, in an honest way (as you are 
by me, though not by them) at ail times, 
and not merely just when I happen to 
be with you.’ Thus (yAoicda: év kaag 
forms, as it were, a compound idea = 
(nAovaSa Karas (Peile), and is in strict 
antithesis to the act. (mA. od kad@s in 
the preceding verse; see Wieseler, 
Chron. Apost. p. 278. mTpos 
buas] ‘with you;’ the primary idea 
of direction is frequently lost sight of, 
especially with persons; compare John 
i. 1, 1 Thess. iii. 4, 2 Thess. ii. 5, and 
see notes on ch, i. 18. 

19. rexvia pov] ‘my little chil- 
dren ;’ appropriate introduction to the 
tender and affectionate address which 
follows. Usteri, Scholz, Lachmann, and 
other expositors and editors connect 
these two words with ver. 18, putting 
a comma only after Suis. By such a 
punctuation (suggested probably by a 
difficulty felt in the idiomatic 8é, ver. 
20) the whole effect of the present ad- 
dress is lost, and the calm and semi- 
proverbial comment of ver. 18, to which 
it now forms such a sudden and tender 
contrast, weakened by the addition of 
an incongruous appeal, The appro- 
priate and affectionate réxvia (only here 
in St. Paul, but often in St. John) is 
changed by Lachm. into réxva [only 
with BFG], but rightly retained by the 
majority of recent editors, 

@Sivw| ‘I am in travail; not ‘in 
utero gesto’ (Heinsius, Exerc. p. 424, 
compare Alf.),— a meaning for which 
there is no satisfactory authority in the 
N. T. or the LXX, but simply ‘ partu- 


rio,” Vulg. Clarom., ‘\Sawlo [sum 


Cuap. IV. 20. 


od pophodh Xpucros ev buiv, ™ 
apt Kal adrakas THY Hovnv pov, 


parturiens] Syr., with the idea, not so 
much of the pain, as of the long and 
continuous effort of travail; see exx. 
in Loesner, Obs, p. 333, and observe the 
tender touch in the rdav, scil. é0re tev 
maralwy wdivey dyayeiv eis uvhunv. The 
use of ®divw in eccl. writers is illustrated 
by Suicer, Thes. 11. p. 1595. 
&xpis 08 poppwdH]| ‘until Christ 
be formed,’ ‘until the new man, Christ 
in us (ch. ii. 20, compare Eph. iii. 17) 
receive, as I doubt not he will (ay per- 
haps designedly omitted; see iii. 19, 
and Herm, de Partic. &y, p. 40), his 
completed and proper form ;’ the obvious 
meaning of this word (étenxoviCeodat, 
eidomoetoSa, see Heinsius, Ezerc. p. 
424) seeming to show that the metaphor 
is continued, though in a changed ap- 
plication. The doctrinal meaning of 
Hopp. is alluded to by Ust. Lehrbd. 1. 1, 
3, p. 225 sq., but see esp. Waterland, 
on Regen. Vol. tv. 445, who satisfac- 
torily shows that this passage cannot be 
urged in favor of a second regeneration. 
On the meaning of &yp: and its distinc- 
tion from pexpi, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 
20. 7#SeAov Se] “L could indeed 
wish ;’ imperf. without &y; comp. Rom. 
ix. 3, Acts xxv. 22. In all such cases 
the simple imperf., which here appears 
- in the true distinctive character of the 
tense (Bernh. Synt. x. 3, 373), must 
be referred to a suppressed conditional 
clause, vellem sc. si possem, si liceret 
(Fritz. Rom. 1x. 3, Vol. u. p. 245), but 
must be distinguished from the imperf. 
with &y, which involves a thought (¢ but 
I will not’) which is here not intended ; 
see Herm. de Partic. ty, p. 56, Winer, 
Gr. § 41. 2, p. 253. The distinction 
drawn by Schémann (Jseus x. 1, p. 
435, cited by Win.) between #SeAov or 
éBovrdunv with &y (‘significat volunta- 


GALATIANS. 


107 


HyeXov S€ Tapeivat Tpos vuas 
OTL atropodpar év bpiv. 


tem a conditione suspensam sc. vellem, 
si liceret’) and without ty (* vere nos 
illud voluisse, etiam si omittenda fueret 
voluntas, scilicet, quod frustra nos velle 
cognovimus,’ — in such cases often with 
a preparatory pév) is subtle, but appy. 
of limited application, even in earlier 
Greek ; in later Greek it is still more 
precarious; see notes on ver. 15. The 
omission of &y in cases of ‘ objective 
necessity’ is well treated by Stalbaum 
on Plato, Sympos. 190 ¢, p. 130. 

dé has caused some difficulty to be felt 
in this connection. Scholef. (Hints, p. 
77) proposes to regard S¢ as redundant; 
Hilgenfeld commences with #SeAov 5¢ a 
new clause, leaving ver. 20 an unfin- 
ished address. This is not necessary ; 
the present use of 5 is analogous to 
its use with personal pronouns after 
vocatives or in answers‘ (Bernhardy, 
Synt. 11. 5, p. 78, Pors. Orest. 614), the 
principle of explanation being the same, 
‘adseveratio non sine oppositione ;’ see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 365 sq. This 
‘opposition’ Meyer traces in the tacit 
contrast between the subject of his wish, 
to be present with them, and his actual 


absence and separation. &pre} 
‘now ;’ see notes on ch. i. 9. 
@AAdEat THY hwrvgnv pov] ‘to 


change my voice, scil. to a milder, 
not necessarily to a more mournful 
(Chrys.), still less to a more severe tone 
(Michael.), which would be wholly at 
variance with the preceding affectionate 
address. There does not, however, ap- 
pear any historical allusion to the tone 
which the Apostle used at his last 
visit (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 280, 
note), but only to the severity of tone 
adopted generally in this epistle. The 
peculiar meanings of dAAdias adopted 
by Theodoret (tav wey thy éxtporhy 


108 


Ye understand not the 
deeper meanings of the 
law, as the allegory of 
Abraham’s two sons, the 
one typical of the earthly, 


Spnvica tay Se 7d BéBaov Savudoa; 


comp. also Theod. Mops.), Greg. Nyss.. 


(uéAdwy petatidévar Thy lotopiay eis tpo- 
mixhv Sewpiay), Grotius (‘modo asperius 
modo lenius loqui’), Whitby (‘temper 
my voice’), al., — seem all artificial, and 
are certainly not confirmed by the two 
exx. cited by Wetst., viz. Artemidor. 11. 
20, Dio Chrys. 59, p. 575, in both of 
which there are qualifications, which 
render the meaning more apparent. 

The change of tense mapeivar, dAAdEaL, 
must not be overpressed (Peile), such a 
change being only due to the essential 
difference of meaning between the two 
verbs, and even in the case of other 
verbs being far from common; see Jelf, 
Gr. § 401. 5, Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 238. 
&mopoduar| ‘I am perplexed, Arm., 


Lil oy WON) 2 fobstupesco] Syr., azop. 
being a pass. in a deponent sense; com- 
pare John xiii. 22, Acts xxv, 20, 2 Cor. 
iv. 8. Fritz. (Opuse. p. 257) still adopts 
the pure pass. sense, ‘nam in vestro 
coetu de me trepidatur, ¢. e. sum vobis 
suspectus’ (comp. Vulg., Clarom., ‘ con- 
fundor’), but this is at variance with 
the regular use of the verb in the N. T., 
and ill harmonizes with the wish which 
the Apostle has just expressed. He feels 
perplexed as to how he shall bring back 
the Galatians to the true faith; by aAn- 
Sevwv he had called out their aversion, 
perhaps a change of tone might work 
some good. év bpiv] ‘in you,’ 
scil. ‘about you ;’ év, as usual, marking 
as it were the sphere in which, or 
substratum on which the action takes 
place; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, 
and comp. 2 Cor. vii, 16, Sag/@ év dyiv. 
Other constructions of drop, are found 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 21, 22. 


/ , e \ 4 
*! Aéyeré pot, of Ud vowov Sérovtes eivat, 
X / ‘i 
TOV VOMOV OvK akoveTe; ™ yéypaTrTal yap STL 
’ A B \ . a e ae ” ra 3 n 5 / 
paap ovo vlovs éxyev, Eva eK TIS TaLdiocKns 
the oth@r of the heavenly Jerusalem, will fully prove. 


in the N. T., e. g. with wep{, John xiii. 
22, and with eis, Acts xxv. 20. 
21. Aéyeré mou x. 7.A.] Llustra- 
tion of the real difference between the 
law and the promise as typified in the 
history of the two sons of Abraham; 
see notes on ver. 24. SéAovTes| 
‘are willing, desirous ;’ not without 
emphasis and significance; od yap Tijs 
Tav TpayudTav aKodrovdslas, GAAG THs 
éxelvwy éxalpov pidoveicias 7d mpayua Hr. 
Tov vépov otk ax.| ‘do ye not 
hear the law ;’ ‘do ye not give ear to 
what it really says.” Various shades of 
meaning have been given to this verb. 
Usteri and Meyer retain the simplest 
meaning with ref. to the custom of 
reading in the synagogues (Luke iv. 
16),— an interp. to a certain degree 
countenanced by the ancient gloss ava- 
ywooxere [DEFG; 3. mss.; Vulg,, 
Clarom., al.]. As however (1) it is 
fairly probable that the Jaw was not as 
commonly read in Christian communi- 
ties as in the Jewish [Justin Mart. 
Apol. 1. p. 83, only mentions 7& arourn- 
povetiuata Tay amootéA@y, }} Ta cvyypdp- 
pata Tay mpopntay; but this must not 
be pressed, as the earliest congregations, 
probably to some extent, adopted the 
practice of the synagogue; see Bing- 
ham, Anéig. x11. 4], and (2) as of S¢- 
Aovtes refers rather to persons Judaically 
inclined than to confirmed Judaists, the 
meaning ‘ give ear to’ (scarcely so much 
as ‘attento animo percipere,’ Schott), 
seems most suitable in the present case ; 
comp. Matth. x. 14, Luke xvi. 29, 31. 
22. yéypamtat yap] ‘For it is 
written ;’ explanatory proof from the 
law of the justice of the negation in- 
volved in the foregoing question. The 


Crap. IV. 23, 24. 


i,” 7 ’ el > ahs 
Kal eva eK THS édevdépas. 


GALATIANS. 


109 


adda 0 pey €k THs TaldioKns 


Kata odpKka yeyevvntat, 0 5é ex THs ErXevSépas, Sia THs érayye- 
i 94¢ ee: > , ee / ? , A 
Mas. “ atwa éotw adrANyopovpeva ata yap eiow dvo diadi- 


particle yap has here the mixed argu- 
mentative and explicative force in which 
it is so often found in these Epp., and 
approaches somewhat in meaning to the 
more definite profecto; see Hartung, 
Partik. ydp, 2. 2, Vol. 1. p. 464 sq., 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 234 8sq., and 
comp. Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 376. 
The Apostle explains by the citation the 
meaning of his question, while at the 
same time he slightly proves the justice 
of putting it; see notes on 1 Thess. 
li. 1. THs twatdlonns| ‘the 
bond-maid ;’ the well-known one, Ha- 
gar. ‘The word, though here, is not 
always so restricted ; see Lobeck, Phryn. 
p- 239. 

23. AAG] ‘Howbeit.’” The full force 
of this particle may be felt in the state- 
ment of the complete opposition of 
character and nature between the two 
sons, which it introduces; ‘ Abraham 
had two sons; though sprung from a 
common father, they were notwithstand- 
ing of essentially different characters.’ 
On the force of this particle, see the 
good article by Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. 
p- 1 sq. Kata odpKal ‘ac- 
cording to the flesh,’ scil. ‘after the reg- 
ular course of nature,’ Bloomf. kxard 
gicews axodovSiay, Chrys.; not per- 
haps without some idea of imperfection, 
weakness, etc., and, as the next clause 
seems to hint, some degree of latent op- 
position to mvedua; see Miiller, Doctr. 
of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 355 (Clark), Tholuck, 
Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 487, and 
comp. notes on ch. iii. 3. 51a 
THis éwayyeadAtas] ‘by means of, by 
virtue of (Hamm.) the promise,’ not 
‘under the promise’ (Peile); the prep. 
here marking not merely the ‘ condition,’ 
‘circumstances’ (37 drouovis, Rom. viii. 


25), but, as Usteri justly remarks, de- 
noting the causa medians of the birth 
of Isaac. Through the might and by 
virtue of the promise (see Gen. xviii. 
10), Sarah conceived Isaac, even as the 
virgin conceived our Lord through the 
divine influence imparted at the Annun- 
ciation; see Chrys. in Joc., who, how- 
ever, reads kar’ émayyeAlav. 

24. &rivd| ‘All which things viewed 
in their most general light ;’ (Col. ii. 
23, Grid éott Adyov pev Exovta. It is 
very doubtful whether Usteri is correct 
in maintaining that Grivd is here simply 
equivalent to g The difference between 
és and éoT1s may not be always very 
distinctly marked in the N. T., but 
there are certainly grounds for asserting 
that in very many of the cases where 
doris appears used for s it will be found 
to be used either, —(1) Indefinitely ; 
t, e. where the antecedent is more or less 
indefinite, either (a) in its own nature, 
from involving some general notion 
(Pape, Lex. s. v. doris, 2), or (b) from 
the way the subject is presented to the 
reader; e. g. Phil. i. 28 (where the subj. 
is really a porvion of a sentence) Col. 
ii. 23, al.; in such cases the relative 


frequently agrees with the consequent, 


see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 
The present passage appears to fall un- 
der this head, as the subject is not 
merely the facts of the birth.of the two 
sons, but all the circumstances viewed 
generally : — (2) Classifically, i. e. where 
the subject is represented as one of a 
class or category; e.g. ch. ii. 4, 1 Cor. 
iii. 17 (see Mey. tn Joc.) ; comp. Matth. 
Gr. § 483, Jelf, Gr. § 816. 4:—(3) 
Explicatively, e. g. Eph. i. 23 (see Har- 
less in Joc.) ; not merely in a causal 
sense, as is commonly asserted; see 


110 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 24. 


a JS ae: 
Kat, pla pev amo dpous Suwa, cis Sovreiav yervdoa, Hris éotly 


Ellendt, Lez. Soph. s. v. 3, Vol. 1. p. 
385, comp. Herm. Gd, Rez. 688 : — or 
lastly (4) Differentially, ¢. e. where it 
denotes an attribute which essentially 
belongs to the nature of the antecedent ; 
see Jelf, Gr. § 816. 5, Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 51. 8. 1 sq. Great difference of 
opinion, however, still exists among 
scholars upon this subject. After the 
instances cited by Struve (who has said 
all that can be said in favor of an occa- 
sional equivalence), Quest. Herod. 1. p. 
2 sq., it seems best to adopt the opinion 
of Ellendt, 7. c., that though the equiv- 
alence of éoris and és has been far too 
generally applied, there are still a few 
instances even in classical Greek. In 
later Greek this permutation took place 
more often, see Rost. u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
1. Bb. 2, Vol. 1. p. 547; still it must 
never be admitted unless none of the 
above distinctions can fairly be applied. 

éotiv &AAnyopovmerval ‘are alle- 
gorized,’ ‘are allegorical,’ ‘by the which 
things another is meant,’ Genev. Transl., 
étépws pev Aceydueva, Erépws 5 voovmueva, 
Schol. ap. Matth.; @danaoplay exdrece 
Thy €k Tapaséoews Tav H5n ‘yervyovdtwr 
mpos Ta tmapdvTa cv-ykpiow, Theod. Mops. 
As the simple meaning of the word in 


this passage has been somewhat obscured ° 


by exegetical glosses, it may be observed 
the &AAnyopetvy properly means to ‘ez- 
press or explain one thing under the 
image of another’ (comp. Plutarch, de 
Isid. et Osir. § 32, p. 363. “EAAnves 
Kpdvov aAAnyopodo: tov xpdvov), and 
hence in the pass., ‘to be so expressed or 
explained ;’ comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
v. 11, p. 687, &AAnyopetoSal tia ex Tay 
évoudtwr do.brepov, ib. Protrept. 11, p. 
86, dpis GAANyopetrat Sov) em) yaorrepa 
éprovoa; Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. p. 185 
(Cantabr. 1655), where a&dAnropetoSa 
is in antithesis to kowodroyeioda:; see 
exx. Wetst. in Joc., and in Kypke, Obs. 


Vol. 1m. p. 282. The explanation of 
Chrys. is thus perfectly clear and satis- 
factory; ov Todro d€ pudvov (H iorropla) 
mpadnrot Omrep palverat, GAAG kal &AAa 
Twa dvaryopeve. The remarks made 
above, ch. iii. 16, apply here with equal 
force to the late attempts of several 
modern expositors (e. g. Meyer, De 
Wette, Jowett) to represent this as a 
subjective, t. e. to speak plainly, —an 
erroneous interpretation of St. Paul 
arising from his Rabbinical education. 
It would be well for such writers to re- 
member that St. Paul is here declaring, 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
that the passage he has cited has a sec- 
ond and a deeper meaning than it ap- 
pears to have: that it has that meaning, 
then, is a positive, objective, and indis- 
putable truth; see Olshausen’s note in 
loc., Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. 1. 2, p. 
59, and the sound remarks of Waterland 
(Pref. to Script. Vol. rv. p. 159) on the 
general nature of an allegory. 

adrai| ‘these women;’ tay adler 
éxelvwy ai untépes 4 Sdppa Kal 7” A-yap, 
Chrys. The insertion of the art. before 
dv0 ( Rec.) is opposed to the authority of 
all the uncial MSS, and is rejected by 
nearly all modern editors. ala 
mév «. 7. A.] ‘one indeed from Mount 
Stnaz,’ scil. originating from, taking its 
rise from, ad, with its usual force, 
marking the place or centre (Alf.) 
whence the S:aSfin emanated ; compare 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 16. 5. The pv 
has here no strictly correlative 5é, as 
that in ver. 26 refers to rq viv ‘Iepouc. 
in the verse immediately preceding; 
comp. Winer, G7. § 63. 2. e, p. 507. 
eis SovrAelav yevvaaal ‘bearing 
children unto bondage,’ i. e. to pass un- 
der and to inherit the lot of bondage; 
SovAn iv ["Ayap] Kal eis SovAciay éyevva, 
Theoph. Aris éotiyv “Avyap] 
‘and this is Hagar.’ The use of éetis 


Cuap. IV. 25. GALATIANS. 


111 
"Ayap. *™7d yap “Ayap Xw& spos eat év tH ’ApaBig: 


25. 7d yap ”*Ayap Swi 3pos] The reading adopted by Lachm. viz. 7d yap Zwa with 
CFG; 17; Boern., Vulg., th., Arm.; Cyr., Epiph., Dam.; Orig. (interpr.) 
Hieron., al. (Ust., De W., Griesd. ‘forsitan ;’ see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. 2. p. 62) 
is plausible and gives a very satisfactory sense. Still Tisch. ed. 2 (see Mill, Mey., 
Scholz,) appears to have rightly returned to the Text. Rec., as the juxtaposition of 
yap and ”Ayap would render (on paradiplomatic considerations, Pref. p, xvi.) the 
omission of the latter word very probable. The conversion of the former into 6¢ 
[ Tisch. ed. 1 with ADE; 37. 73. 80, Copt. (Wilk., not Bott.), Cyr. 1.] was per- 


haps suggested by the yéy in ver. 24. 


here seems to fall under (4): it is this 
covenant peculiarly, this one of which 
the differentia is, that it originates from 
Sinai, which is allegorically identical 
with Hagar; see above, and esp. Jelf, 
Gr. § 816. 4. 

25.7d yap “Ayap x«.7.A.] ‘For 
the word Hagar is Mount Sinai in Ara- 
bia,’ i.e. among the Arabians; 7d 5é 
Zwa bpos obtw pesepunveveta TH émi- 
Xwpiw altav yAéttn, Chrys. : etymolog- 
ical reason, added almost parenthetically, 
for the foregoing statement of the alle- 
gorical identity of Mount Sinai and 
Hagar, 7d not agreeing with “Ayap but 
referring to it in its abstract form (Jelf, 
Gr. § 457.1), and év tH ‘ApaBiq not 
supplying a mere topographical state- 
ment (comp. Syr., Copt.), but serving 
to define the people by whom Sinai was 
so called; todt0 rH Tay ApdBwv yAdoon 
“Ayap kadetra, Schol. ap. Matth. 
It is thus obvious that this interpreta- 
tion presupposes that “Ayap was a pro- 
vincial name of the mountain. Nor 
does this seem at all improbable, though 
we are bound to say that the corrobora- 
tive evidence from the modern appella- 
tions of the mountain, is less strong 
than the appeals to it (Bloomf. Forster, 
Geogr. of Arabia, Vol. 1. p. 182) would 
seem to imply. The best authority for 
the assertion seems to be the careful and 
diligént Biisching (Erdbeschr. Vol. v. p. 
535), who adduces the statement of 
Harant, that Sinai was still called 


‘ Hadschar’ in his time (* Hadsch heisst 
bekanntlich auch Fels,’ Ritter, Erd- 
kunde, Vol. xvi. Fart. 1. p. 1086), 
though now it is commonly called either 
‘Dschebel Musa’ (in a more limited 
reference), or ‘Dschebel et Tfr;’ see 
Ritter, Erdk. Vol. xtv. Part 1. p. 535, 
Martiniere, Dict. Geogr. et Crit. 8s, v. 
‘Sinai.’ It must also be said that the 
evidence from etymology is also not very 
strong, as the Arabian word ‘ Hadjar’ 
(comp. Chald. 439 Gen. xxxi. 47), ap- 
pears certainly only to mean ‘a stone’ 
(see Freytag, Lex. Arab. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
346), still, — even if we leave unnoticed 
the fact of there having been a town 
called “Ayap in the vicinity (Ewald; 
compare Assemann, Bibi. Orient. Vol. 
1. 2, p. 753), there are so many analo- 
gous instances of mountains bearing 
names in which the word ‘stone’ is 
incorporated (e. g. ‘ Weissestein’ al.), 
that there seems nothing unnatural in 
supposing that “Ayap actually was, and 
possibly may be now, the strictly pro- 
vincial name of the portion of the 
mountain now commonly called ‘ Dsche- 
bel Musa.’ This St. Paul might have 
learnt during his stay in that country. 

It must be admitted that we escape all 
this if we adopt the reading of Lach- 
mann : Td yap Zwa...’ApaBig will then 
form a parenthesis, and the emphasis 
will rest on év tH *ApaBia; ‘ For Mount 
Sinai is in Arabia,’ — Arabia, the home 
of the bond-maid’s children, the viol 


112 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 25, 26. 


a \ lal a e , , \ \ lal , 
ovaTtouxel 5é TH viv ‘Iepovoadjp, dovrever yap peTa TOV TEKVOV 


auTijs. 


“Ayap, Baruch iii. 23; comp. Hofmann, 
Sch ifth. Vol. u. 2. p. 62. In this case 
also SiaSjxn is the subject of cvaroxe? 
(opp. to Hofm.), without the grammati- 
cal distortion in making Hagar the sub- 
ject. Still there is a difficulty in the 
covenant being said guvorotxeiv ; as Sov- 
Acia (Sovdever yap) is plainly the tertiuwm 
comparationis between Hagar and Jeru- 
salem, and the assertion #ris éo7ly “Ayap 
is really not so much supported by the 
sentence which follows, as by the em- 
phasis which is assumed to rest on éy TH 
’ApaB., the last words of it. We have, 
therefore, nothing better to offer than the 
former interpretation. TvgTOI- 
xe? 8] ‘she stands too in the same file 
or rank with,’ ‘is conformable with,’ 
Arm., the nominative obviously being 
“Ayap (‘gue consonat,’ Clarom.) not 
Swa bpos (Vulg.), nor even pla dia- 
Shen (De W.), as there would thus be 
no point of comparison (dovAeia) be- 
tween the subject of cvaroixe? and 4 
vov ‘lepova. (Mey.); see above. The dé 
(‘und zwar,’ Hilgenf.) appears to add a 
fresh explanatory characteristic, and re- 
tains its proper force in the latent contrast 
that the addition of a new fact brings 
with it; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 
362. Zvorotxeivy is best illustrated by 
Polyb. Hist. x. 21 (cited by Wetst.), 
cu(vyotvras Kal cvoTo:xobvTas Siaméver : 
where ou(vy. evidently refers to soldiers 
in the same rank, avorotx. to soldiers 
in the same jfile: see Fell in Joc., where 
the two lists are drawn out; each name 
in which gvoroixe? with those in the 
same list, but évriorotxe? with those in 
the opposite list. The geographical 
gloss of Chrys. yerrmdCer, Grrerar (‘qui 
conjunctus est,’ Vulg., ‘gamarko’ [comp. 
‘marge’] Goth.), due probably to the 
assumption that Siva dpos is the nom. to 


% 68 avw ‘Iepovcariw édevdépa eat, Aris éeotiv 


avoToxe?, is not exegetically tenable, 
and has been rejected by nearly all 
modern expositors. Th viv ‘Tep.] 
‘the present Jerusalem,’ scil. tH évtatd&a, 
Th ém) ys, Schol. ap. Matth.: ‘ antithe- 
ton superne ; nunc temporis est, supra 
loci,’ Bengel. SovrAcver yap] 
‘for she is in bondage,’ scil. rats voutrats 
mapatnphoeowv, Schol. ap. Matth., comp. 
Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. u. 2, p. 61; 
the nom. being 7 viv ‘Iep., and the yap 
serving to confirm the justice of the as- 
sertion of gucroixia. The reading 
d¢ [ Rec. with DsEJK; al.; Syr.-Phil. 
(marg.), al.; Ff.] is rightly rejected by 
most recent editors with preponderant 
external evidence, viz. ABCD!FG; many 
mss. and Vy. 

26. 7 5 &vw ‘lepovoeaaAnym] ‘But 
the Jerusalem above ;’ contrast to the 
vov ‘lep. of the preceding verse: the cor- 
respondence of Sarah, ¢. e. the other 
covenant, with the heavenly Jerusalem 
is assumed as sufficiently obvious from 
the context. The meaning of avw can 
scarcely be considered doubtful. It can- 
not be local (Mount Sion, 4 &vw médrus, 
Elsner, al.) as this is inconsistent with 
the foregoing viv, nor yet temporal (‘the 
ancient Jerus., the Salem of Melchize- 
dek,’ Michael. al.), as such a ref. is in- 
consistent with a context which only 
points to later periods, — but has sim- 
ply its usual ethical reference, ‘ above,’ 
‘heavenly,’ ‘que sursum est,’ Vulg., 


Clarom., \sSx9 Syr.-Phil. ; compare 


‘lepovoaryu émovpdvuos, Heb. xii. 22, 
‘Iepovo. xawh, Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 25 see 
the rabbinical quotations in Wetst., and 
comp. Ust. Lehrb. u. 1.2, p. 182. As 
Jerusalem 7 viv was the centre of Ju- 
daism and the ancient theocratic king- 
dom, so Jerusalem 7 &yw is the typical 


Cuap. LV. 27, 28. 


GALATIANS. 


113 


RyTnp Hav ” yéyparta yap, EdppavSnte oreipa 4 ov tik- 
Tovea, pijlov Kal Bonoov » ovK wdivovaa, OTL TOAAA TA TéKVA THs 
Epnov padrov } Tis éxovans Tov dvdpa. ™ tpels dé, dderdoi, 


representation of Christianity, and the 
Messianic kingdom. On the three- 
fold meaning of ‘Iepove. in the N. T. 
(scil. the heavenly community of the 
righteous, the Church on earth, the new 
Jerus. on the glorified earth), and the 
distinction observed by St. John between 
‘IepovoaA} (the sacred name) and ‘Iepo- 
odAuua, see Hengstengb. on Apocal. Vol. 
1, p- 319 (Clark) ; and on the general 
use and meaning of the expression, the 
learned treatise of Schoettgen, Hore 
Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 1205—1248. 

Ht1s x. 7, A.| Sand this one (this aw 
‘Iepova.) is owr mother ;’ ris being used 
appy-, as in ver. 25, in its ‘ differential’ 
sense (see notes on ver. 24) and retain- 
ing the emphasis, which, as the order 
of the words seems to imply, does not 
rest on jjuav (Winer). The ad- 
dition of mdytwy before quay (Ree. 
{Lachm.], with AJK; mss.; Arab.- 
Pol., al.) is rightly rejected by Tisch. 
al., with BCDEFG; 65. 6, and majority 
of Vv. and Ff. 

27. yéypamrtrat yap] ‘for it is 
written,’ proof of the clause immedi- 
ately preceding, fris x. 7. A., from the 
prophetic consolation of Isaiah (ch. liv. 
1), which though esp. addressed _pri- 
marily to Israel and Jerusalem (Knobel, 
Jes. p. 380), was directed with a further 
and fuller reference to the Church of 
which they were the types. 
pigov| ‘break forth (into a ery). 
The ellipsis is usually supplied by @wvihp ; 
see Rost u. Palm, s. v. pyyv., and the 
numerous examples of pijtov gwrhy cited 
by Wetst. in loc. The critical accuracy 
of Schott leads him to supply edppocv- 
vyy (Isaiah xlix. 13, lii. 9), reverting to 
edppdvSynrt, on the principle that the 
ellipsis is always to be supplied from the 


context ; compare ‘ erumpere gaudium,’ 
Terent. Eun. 11. 5. 2. It is perhaps 
more simple to supply Bojy, derived from 
Bénoov with which fjtoy is so closely 
joined, or still more probably, to regard 
pigov as understood from long usage to 
be simply equivalent to xpdiov; pitaro- 
Kpatdrw, Hesych. éTL TOAAG 
MGAXAOov K.T.A,] ‘for many are the 
children of the desolate more than of her 
that hath the husband,’ ‘multi filii de- 
serte magis quam,’ etc. Vulg., Clarom., 
Goth. ; woAAd maddov being not simply 
equivalent to mAciova #, but implying 
that both should have many, but the 
desolate one more than the other ( Mey.). 
The compound expression rijs éxovons 
Tov &v5pa answers to the simpler ;d>>3 


JASuS=, Syr.; sim, /&th., Arm.) 
is x 


in the original, and is thus little more 
than ‘the married one,’ the force of the 
art. (tov &vdpa) being perhaps, as Alf. 
observes, too delicate to be expressed in 
English. This prophecy is some- 
what differently applied by Clem. ad 
Cor, u. 2, and Orig. in Rom, vi. Vol. 11. 
p- 33 (ed. Lomm.), 4 oretpa being re- 
ferred more peculiarly to the Gentile 
church as opposed to the Jewish church 
(trav Soxodvtwy exew Oedv); whereas 
St. Paul understands under the image 
of Sarah (uhrnp jay) the church, as 
composed both of Jews and Gentiles, 
and thus as in contradistinction to the 
children of the law, the bond-children 
of the ancient theocracy. 

28. iwets Sé] ‘But ye,’ application 
of the foregoing allegory to the case of 
those whom the Apostle is now address- 
ing, the 8 being here petaBartixdy ( Har- 
tung, Partik. dé, 2. 3. Vol. 1. p. 165, see 
notcs on ch, i. 11, and marking a tran- 


15 


114 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 28, 29. 


< DS 
kata Ioaak érayyedlas téxva éoté. ™ aX WoTEp TOTE 6 KATA 


/ \ 2d / \ \ a ef \ a 
capka yevyndets édiwxev tov Kata IIvedpa, ovtas Kal viv. 


sition to the readers while also hinting 
at their contrast to the children of rijs 
éexovons Tov &vdpa. If the reading 
of Rec. qu.-éouév be adopted, which, 
however, though well supported [AC 
D°E(?)JK ; mss.; Syr., Vulg., Copt., 
Goth., A&th.-Platt, Arm.; Chrys., 
Theod., Theodrt., al.], is opposed to 
good external evidence [BDIE(?)FG; 
Clarom., Sah., mss.; A®th--Pol.; Orig., 
Iren. ; Ambr., Ambrst., al.], and is sus- 
picious as appy. being a confirmation 
to ver. 31, then 5 must be considered 
as indicating a resumption of ver. 
26, after the parenthetical quotation 
in ver. 27; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m1. 
p. 377, Hartung, Partik. 3é, 3.1, Vol. 
1. p. 173. Kata load] ‘af- 
ter the example of Isaac ;’ kara pointing 
to the ‘norma’ or example which was 
furnished by Isaac; so 1 Pet. i. 15, 
kata tov Kadéoavra, Eph. iv. 24, Col. 
iii. 10: see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358. 
Several exx. of this usage are cited by 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. 284, and Wetst. 
in loc. émayyeAtas téxva] 
‘children of promise.’ These words 
admit of three interpretations ; — (a) 
‘children who have God’s promise;’ or 
(5) ‘children promised by God,’ ¢. e. the 
seed promised by God to Abraham; or 
(ce) ‘children of, ¢ e. by virtue of, 
promise.’ oth the emphasis, which 
appears from the order to rest on érayy., 
and the words 8:4 ris émayy., ver. 23, 
seem decisively in favor of the last in- 
terpretation ; compare Rom. ix. 8, and 
see Fritz. in loc. 

29.aAN &omrep| ‘Howbeit as;’ 
special notice of an instructive and 
suggestive comparison between the cir- 
cumstances of the types and of the an- 
titypes, 4AA& with its usual adversative 
force directing the reader’s attention to 


a fresh statement, which involves a spe- 
cies of contrast to the former; ‘ye are 
children of promise it is true, howbeit 
ye must expect persecution ;’ see esp. 
Chrys. in loc., and comp. Klotz. Devar, 
Vol. 1. p. 29. €Siwkerv] *per- 
secuted,’ ‘persequebatur,’ Vulg, Cla- 
rom., al.; imperf., as designating an 
action which still spiritually continues ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 40. 3, p. 240. Whether 
the reference is to be regarded as (a) 
exclusively to Genesis xxi. 9, m4 SIA1 
passes oan-qa-ry. (Alf, Ewald, 
al.), or (6) to an ancient, and therefore, 
as cited by St. Paul, true tradition of 
the Jewish Church (see below) will 
somewhat depend on the meaning as- 
signed to pms in Gen. 7. ec. That it 
may mean ‘mocked’ (opp. to Knobel 
in loc.) seems certain from Gen. xxxix, 
14, 17, and indeed from the command 
in Gen. xxi. 10. As however it does 
appear to mean no more than ‘playing 
like a child,’ rai(ovra, LXX., ‘luden- 
tem,’ Vulg. (see Tisch. im Joc., and 
Gesen. Lex. s. v.), and as Joseph. {An- 
tig. 1. 12, 3), says only kaxoupyety abtdov 
duvduevwy, it seems on the whole best to 
adopt (5) ; see Beresch, tim. 15 ( Wetst.), 
‘Ismael tulit arcum et sagittas et jacu- 
latus est Isaacum, et pre se tulit ac si 
luderet,’ and Studer (in Ust.), who al- 
ludes to a similar rabbinical interpreta- 
tion founded on the cabalistic equiva- 
lence in numbers of the letters in prs 
and the explicit -am ; comp. Hackspan, 
Notes on Script. Vol. 1. 220. 

Tov Kata&d Mvedpal ‘him that was 
according to the Spirit,’ scil. yevynSévra, 
supplied from the preceding clause. The 
prep. it need scarcely be said does not 
here point to the cause or medium, 
‘Dei opera’ (Vatabl.), but simply ‘ ac- 
cording to,’ z. e. in accordance with the 


Crap. LV. 30, 31. 


GALATIANS. 


115 


” Grra Th réyer 4 ypady; "ExBare tHv raidicKnnv Kal tov vidv 
auTis ov yap pi) KANpovounon Oo vids THs TaidioKns peTa Tod 


As ye are free, stand fast 
in your freedom. 


working by promise of the Holy Spirit ; 
compare Rom. iv. 19, 20. Kara capra 
refers to the natural laws according to 
which Ishmael was born; kara Tyvetdua, 
the supernatural laws according to which 
Isaac was conceived and born. 

o8rws Kal viv] ‘so also is it now; 
scil. those descended from Abraham 
kata odpxa (the Jews) still persecute the 
free children of promise (the Christians). 
The sentiment is expressed in general 
terms, but perhaps may here be con- 
ceived as pointed at the pernicious ef- 
forts of the Judaizers, which probably 
involved persecution both spiritual and 
material; comp. Meyer in loc. A 
good sermon on this text, though with 
a somewhat special application, will be 
found in Farindon, Serm. x1. Vol. 1. p. 
287 sq. (ed. 1849.) 

30. dAAd] ‘Nevertheless ;’ strongly 
consolatory declaration (rapauvdia ixayh, 
Chrys.) introducing a distinct contrast 
with the preceding declaration of the 
persecution, and calling away the 
thought of the reader to a totally fresh 
aspect; ‘avocat mentem ab illis tristi- 
bus ad illam rem, quam jam opponit,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 6. 

h ypaoh| ‘the Scripture.’ The fol- 
lowing words are really the words of 
Sarah to Abraham, but confirmed, ver. 
12, by God Himself; ‘ ejecta est Agar 
Sari postulante et Deo annuente,’ Est. 
The interrogative form which introduces 
the citation gives it force and vigor; 
comp. Rom. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 4. 

od KAnpovonhan| ‘shall in no wise 
be heir; emphatic: ‘liberi autem ex 
concubina conditionis servilis aut extra- 
nea seu gentili a successione plane apud 
Ebrzeos excludebantur,’ Selden, de Suc- 
cess. cap. 3, Vol. 1. p. 11. Hammond 


viod THs édhevYépas. 


31 A100, 


cites the instance of Jephthah, who was 
thrust out by his brethren, under the 
second condition of the law, as the son 
of a strange woman; Judges xi. 2. 

With regard to the use of od uh with 
the subj. [xAnpovoujoee BDE; mss. ; 
Theoph.], it may be observed that the 
distinction drawn by Hermann (Cd. 
Col. 853) between od wh with future 
indic. (duration or futurity) and with 
aor. subj. (speedy occurrence) is not ap- 
plicable to the N. T., on accouut of (1) 
the varyings (as here; (2) the decided 
violations of the rule where the MSS. 
are unanimous, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 15: 
and (3) the obvious prevalence of the 


‘subjunctive over the future, both in the 


N. T. and ‘ fatiscens Greecitas ;’ see Lo- 
beck, Phryn. p. 722, Thiersch, Pentat. 
1. 15, p. 190, and exx. in Gayler, p. 
433. On the general use of the united 
particles see Winer, Gr. § 56. 3, p. 450, 
and esp. Donalds. Craét. § 394, Gayler, 
Partic. Neg. p. 405, exx. p. 430, and 
on the best mode of translation, notes 
on 1 Thess. iv. 15 ( Transl. ) 

31. 526] ‘Wherefore ;’ commencement 
of a short semi-paragraph stating the 
consolatory application of what has pre- 
ceded (‘guamobrem; aptius duas res 
conjungit,’ Klotz. Devar. Vol. 11. p. 173), 
and passing into an exhortation in the 
following verse. It is very difficult to 
decide on the exact connection, as St. 
Paul’s use of 8:6 does not appear to 
have been very fixed. Sometimes, as 
Rom. ii. 1, Eph. ii. 11, iii. 13, iv. 25, 
it begins a paragraph ; sometimes (cs- 
pecially with kal) it closely connects 
clauses, as Rom. i. 24, iv. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 
13, v. 9, Phil. ii. 9; while in 2 Cor. xii. 
10, 1 Thess. v. 11 (imperat.), it closes 
a paragraph, though not in a way 


GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 30— VY. 1. 


116 


adeAhoi, odK eopev TadioKns Téxva adda TIS EhevSépas. V. 1 7H 

1. 77 éAcvSepia x. t. A.] The difficulty of deciding on the true reading of this 
passage, owing to the great variation of MSS., is very great. The reading of 
Lachm., tH édeuvSepia quads Xpiotds HAevSéepwoev orhxete ody, is plausible, and well 
supported, as 7 is omitted by ABCD!; mss. ; Copt., Damasce., al. ; still the doubt- 
ful meaning of the dat. édevSep. (not the article, at which Miick. stumbles), and 
the abrup. character of the whole, make it, on internal grounds, very dificult to 
admit. Tisch. (so Matth., Scholz, Rinck, Riick., Olsh., al., though differing in 
other points) seems rightly to have retained 7 with D°EJK (FG # eAeus. jiu. 3 com- 
pare Vulg., Clarom.) ; mss. Syr.; Chrys., Theod. (2), al., as the H is less likely 
to have arisen from a repetition of the first letter of HMA (Mey.), than to have 


strictly similar to the present. On the 
whole, it seems most probable that St. 
Paul was about to pass on to an appli- 
cation of, not a deduction from, the 
previous remarks and citation. He 
commences with 66, but the word 
eAevSepas suggesting a digression (sec 
Davidson, Introd. Vol. m1. p. 148), he 
turns the application by means of 77 
éAevSepia, into an inferential exhortation 
(Eth. erroneously makes the first clause 
a reason ‘quia Christus’), ver. 1, and 
recommences a new parallel train of 
thought with ie éyéd. We thus puta 
slight pause after iv. 30, and a fuller one 
after v. l. If jets 5¢ be adopted 
{[AC; mss.; Copt.; Cyr. (1), Damasc., 
al.| the connection will be more easy. 
Ver. 30 describes the fate of the bond- 
children ; ver. 31 will then form a sort 
of consolatory conclusion, deriving some 
force from the emphatic «Anpoy.; ‘but 
we shall have a different fate; we shall 
be inheritors, for we are children, not 
of a bond-maid, but of a free-woman.’ 
This reading is, however, more than 
doubtful, as appearing to be only a 
repetition from ver, 28. For a&pa (Ree. ), 
which would perhaps imply a little more 
decidedly than 63 a continuance of what 
was said (Donalds. Crat. § 192), the 
external evidence [JK (apa oty FG, 
Theodrt.] is very weak, and the proba- 
bility of correction not inconsiderable. 
matdiaonns| ‘of a bond-maid,’ scil. 


‘of any bond-maid.’ The omission of 
the article may be accounted for, — not 
by the negative form of the proposition 
(Middleton zm doc.), but by the princi- 
ple of correlation, whereby when the 
governing article is anarthrous (here pos- 
sibly so atter the predicative éopév, 
Middl. p. 43) the governed becomes 
anarthrous also; see Middl. Gr. Art. 
11. 3. 7, p. 50 (ed. Rose), comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 113 sq. As, however, 
maidicxn appears in every other place 
with the art. (even after the prep. in 
ver. 23), the present omission is perhaps 
more probably regarded as intentional, 
and as designed to give a general char- 
acter to the Apostle’s conclusion; see 
Peile in loc. Tis éAevdépas cannot, 
however, be translated ‘ of a tree woman.’ 


Cuarter V. 1l. tH eCAeudepla 
k. T. A.] ‘Stand firm, then, in the free- 
dom for which,’ ete. ; inferential exhor- 
tation from the declaration immediately 
preceding. Of the many explanations 
which the expression tH éAevSepia orh- 
kev has received, the two following 
appear to be the most probable; (a) 
‘ dibertati stare, quam deserere est nefas,’ 
Fritz. Rom. xii. 12, Vol. mi. p. 80, 
Winer, Gr. § 31. 3. obs. p. 244 (ed. 5; 
less distinctly p. 188, ed. 6) ; (8) ‘quod 
attinet ad libertatem, starve,’ Bretschn., 
Meyer on 2 Cor. i. 24, The objection 
to (a) is, that such expressions as TH 


Crap. V. 1. GALATIANS. 117 


eXevSepia 4 Huas Xpiotos nrevIépwoev otyKeTe odv, Kal pi) 


madw Cuy@ Sovrelas évéexerSe. 


been omitted from having been accidentally merged in it. His omission of ody, 
however, with DE; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (Philox.); Theodrt. (2) against ABC! 
FG; 10. 17. 31. 37, al.; Boern., Augiens., Goth., Copt., al.; Cyr., Aug., al. — 
does not seem tenable. The order Xpiords jyuds ( Rec.) has but weak external 
support [CJK; mss.; appy. some Vv.; Chrys., Theod.], and is reversed by most 


recent editors. 


SAlWer Swouévew are not strictly similar, 
as the idea of a hostile attitude (dat. 
incommodi) is involved in the dative, 
‘calamitatem non subterfugientes,’ etc., 
80 tmoorival Tim, wévew tur (Bernh. 
Synt. m1. 13. b, p. 98), and Hom. JZ, 
xxi. 600, orjvai tun. The latter inter- 
pretation seems thus the most correct ; 
the dative, however, must not be trans- 
lated too laxly (‘as regards the free- 
dom’), as it serves to call attention to 
the exact sphere in which, and to which, 
the action is limited, e. 9. 2r7 TH Stavoia, 
Polyb. xxi. 9. 8; see Scheuerl. Synt. 
§ 22. 2, p. 179, and notes on ch. i. 22. 

It may be remarked that we sometimes 
find an inserted éy (1 Cor. xvi. 13, 
compare Riick.) without much apparent 
difference of meaning, still it does not 
seem hypercritical to say that in this 
latter case the idea of the ‘sphere or 
element in which’ was designed by the 
writer to come more distinctly into 
view ; compare Winer, Gr. § 31. 8, p. 
194. On the meaning of orhKeiv, which 
per se is only ‘stare’ (Vulg., Clarom.), 
but which derives its fuller meaning 
from the context ; comp. Chrys., orjxere 
eimév, Tov oddov edeite, and see notes on 
Phil. i. 27. fi] ‘for which ;’ dat. 
commodi. The usual ab/atival explana- 
tion ‘qua nos liberavit’ (Vulg.), scil. 
jv juiv @wxev (so expressly Conyb.), 
may perhaps be justified by the common 
constructions xalpew xapg, etc., but as 
it is very doubtful whether this con- 
struct. occurs in St. Paul’s Epp. (1 
Thess. iii; 9 seems an instance of at- 


traction; see notes in loc.), it seems 
safer to adhere to the former explana- 
tion; see Meyer in oc. (obs.) For 
a good sermon on the notion of Chris- 
tian liberty, see Bp. Hall, Serm. xxv1. 
Vol. v. p. 339 sq. (Talboys). 

mdaXev refers to the previous subser- 
vience of the Galatians to heathenism; 
see notes on ch. iv. 9. Cvy@ 
Sovdretlas] ‘the yoke of bondage,’ not 
‘a yoke,’ etc., Copt., Ewald, al.; the 
anarthrous SovAeia (comp. Winer, Gr. 
§19. 1, p. 109) being appy. used some- 
what indefinitely to mark the general 
character of the (uydv, and by the 
principle of correlation causing the gov- 
erning noun to lose its article; see Mid- 
dleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6, and compare 
notes on ch. v. 31. It will be observed 
that maAw is more easily explained on 
the hypothesis of (vy@ being taken in- 
definitely ; the present view, however, 
seems most in accordance with the defi- 
nite statement in ver. 2; Cuyby 5 Sov- 
Aclas Thy KaT& véuov (why, ‘Theod. On 
the use of the gen. as denoting the pre- 
dominant nature or quality inherent in 
the governing noun, see Scheuerl. Syné. 
§ 16. 3, p. 115, and compare Soph. Aj. 
944, ofa Sovdecias (vya, Aisch. Agam. 
365, SovAelas ydyyapov. 
xeose] ‘be held fast; not exactly 


> / 
eyvEe= 


eo ws a v4 [mancipemini, subjiciatis 
vos], but simply ‘implicamini,’ Beza, 
with ref. perhaps to the tenacity of the 
hold, and the difficulty to shake it off; 
comp. Beng. For exx. of the use of 


118 


If ye submit to cireum- 
cision, ye are bound to the 
whole law, and your union 
with Christ is wholly void. 


® wapTipopar dé 


piTéuvno se 


the verb both in a physical (Herod. 1. 
121, évéxoua TH wayh), and in an ethi- 
cal sense (Plutarch Symp. u. qu. 3. 1, 
évéexeosa: Sdyuaow TuSayapicois), see 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 285, and Wetst. 
tn loc. 

2.%5¢ é€ym MataAos} ‘Behold I 
Paul ;’ emphatic and warning declara- 
tion (7é0n &re:Aj, Chrys.) of the dan- 
gerous consequences, and worse than 
uselessness of undergoing circumcision, 
The Apostle’s introduction of his own 
name (compare 2 Cor. x. 1, Eph. iii. 1), 
prefaced by the arresting %e (‘atten- 
tionem excitantis est,’ Grot.), has been 


differently explained. The most natu-. 


ral view seems to be that it was to in- 
crease conviction (SapSodvros jv ois Aé- 
yet, Chrys., comp, Theod.) and to add 
to the assertion the weight of his Apos- 
tolic dignity; tis Tod mpocdmrov af10- 
miotias apkovons avtl maons arodeltews, 
Chrys. On the accentuation of %e, 
which, according to the grammarians, 
is oxytone in Attic and paroxytone in 
non-Attic Greek, see Winer, Gr. § 6. 1, 
p. 47. éav mepitreur.| if 
ye be circumcised ;’ i. e. ‘if you continue 
to follow that rite,’ the present marking 
the action as one still going on. On 
the use of éay with pres. subj., compare 
notes on ch. i. 8, 9. obdev 
o&pedAhae.| ‘shall profit you nothing ;’ 
the fut., having no ref. whatever to the 
nearness of the Lord’s rapougia (Mey.), 
but simply marking the certain reswit of 
such a course of practice; * Christ (as 
you will find) will never profit you any- 
thing ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, 
and compare Schmalf. Synt. § 57, p. 
116 sq. 

3. waptvpouatr Sé] ‘yea I bear 
witness,’ testiticor autem,’ Vulg., Cla- 


GALATIANS. 


Xpirtos 


Cuaapr. V. 2, 3. 


2"Ide éyo Ilatnos Aéyw byiv ote éav Tre- 


vas ovdev wdbedjoer 


/ \ b) , o4 iva > 
TAMMY TAVTL AVIPOTH TEPLTEMVOMEVD OTL OeEt- 


rom., not ‘enim,’ Beza; further and 
slightly contrasted statement; the 65 
not being merely connective, but as 
usual implying a certain degree of op- 
position between the clause it introduces 
and the preceding declaration; ‘not 
only will Christ prove no benefit to you, 
but you will in addition become debtors 
to the law;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 362, Hermann, Viger, No. 343. b, 
and for a notice of the similar use of 
‘autem,’ Hand. Tursed/, Vol. 1. p. 562. 
The verb pwapriipoua, a dts Aeydu., in St. 
Paul’s Epp. (Eph. iv. 24, compare Acts 
xx. 26), is here used in the sense of 
hapTupodua, appy. involving the idea 
of a solemn declaration, as if before 
witnesses ; comp. notes on Eph. iv. 24. 
That there is no ellipsis of @eby (Hil- 
genf., Bretschn.) appears plainly from 
Eph. 2. c., and from the similar usage of 
the word in classical Greek, e. g. Plato, 
Phileb, 47 D, tatra 5 adére pev ovk 
éuaptupdueda, viv Se Aeyouev. Dindorf 
in Steph. Thess. s. v. cites Eustath. Ii. 
p. 1221. 33, ds ai ioropia: wapripovtas. 

ma dA ey may refer to the preceding verse, 
or to a previous declaration of the same 
kind made by word of mouth. The 
former is more probable, as mavt) av- 
Spérw appears a more expanded applica- 
cation of Syiv, ver. 2; ody tuiv Aéyw 
pdvoy, pnoiv, GAAG Kal wavtT) avdpérw 
mepiteuv., Chrys.; see Neander, Plant- 
tng, Vol. 1. p. 214 note (Bohn). 
TepiTeuvopeva| ‘submitting to be 
circumcised, ‘undergoing circumcision,’ 
‘circumcidente se,’ Vulg., Clarom., or, 
more idiomatically ‘geé curat se cir- 
cumcidi,’ Beza,—but less accurately, 
as the participle is anarthrous, and what 
is called a tertiary predicate; see Don- 
alds. Crat, § 306, ib, Gr. § 495. 


Cuap. V. 4, 5. 


if b] \ e \ , an 
AeTNS E€oTivy OAOY TOV VOMOY TroLnTAL. 


GALATIANS. 


119 


* KaTNPYNSHTE ato Tov 


Xpictov oitwes ev voww ducawovoe, THs xapitos éferéoate. 
$ ¢ “ \ / > ! + *) Py / > PS) , 
nets yap IIvevparti €« migtews EXTTOA OLKALOTUINS ATEKOEYOMESA. 


The tense wepiteuv., not mepitundévts or 
mepiteTUnuevm, Must not be overlooked : 
it was not the circumcised, as such, that 
had become in this strict sense dpeiAérat 
dAov Toy vouov Tojo, but he who was 
designedly undergoing the rite. “Odoy, 
as its position shows, is emphatic; éAnv 
epetAkvow Thy Seamotetay, Chrys. 

4, katnpynante ard tod Xp] 
‘Ye were done away from Christ,’ ‘Your 
union with Christ became void,’ scil. 
‘when you entered upon the course 
which now ye are pursuing ;’ further 
and forcible explanation of Xpiotds duds 
ovdev wpeAtoe: (ver. 2), the absence of 
all connecting particles serving to give 
the statement both vigor and emphasis. 
The construction is what is called ‘ preeg- 
nans’ (Rom. vii. 2, 6, see Winer, Gr. § 
66. 2, p. 547); amd, strictly considered, 
not belonging to karnpyédnte in the 
sense of jAevdepwdnre ard, but to some 
word which can easily be supplied, e. g. 
KkaTnpynsnte Kal éxwpladnte amb Xp., 
‘nulli estis redditi et a Christo avulsi ;’ 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, pdelperSa: amd, and 
Fritz. Rom. 1. c. Vol. u. p. 8, 9. 

The verb katapyéw is a favorite word 
with St. Paul, being used in his Epp. 
(the Ep. to the Hebrews not being in- 
cluded) twenty-five times. In the rest 
of the N. T. it is used only twice, Luke 
xili. 7, Heb. ii. 14, and in the whole 
LXX. only four times, all in Esdras. 
It is rare in ordinary Greek; see Eurip. 
Pheniss. 753, and Polyb. Frag. Hist. 
69. The rod is omitted by Lachm. 
with BCDIFG; 2 mss.; Theoph., — 
but, as being less usual, esp. when pre- 
ceded by a prep., is more probably re- 
tained, with AD®EJK ; nearly all mss.; 
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. ( Tisch. ). 

év véuw Siratovase] ‘are being 


justified in the law,’ ‘in lege,’ Vulg., 
Clarom.; éy not being instrumental 
(Ewald), but pointing to the sphere of 
the action; compare notes on ch. iii. 11. 
The pres. d:xaodcde is correctly referred 
by the principal ancient and modern 
commentators to the feelings of the sub- 
ject (és twoAauBdvere, Theophyl., ‘ut 
vobis videtur,’ Fritz. Opuse. p. 156) ; 
compare Goth. ‘ garaihtans qi bib izvis’ 
[ justos dicitis vos]. On this use of the 
subjective present (commonly employed 
to indicate certainty, prophetic confi- 
dence, expectation of speedy issue, etc.), 
see Bernh. Synt. x. 2, p. 371, Schmal- 
feld, Synt. § 54. 2, p. 91. THS 
xdpitos éfewéoarte] ‘ye fell away 
from grace ;’ the aor., as in the first 
clause, referring to the time when legal 
justification was admitted and put for- 
ward; see, however, notes to Transl. 
On the meaning of éxmimreww twos (‘al- 
iqui re excidere, scil. ejus jacturam 
facere’) see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Fasc. 
11. p. 11, and comp. Plato, Rep. v1. 496, 
éxmeceiv gidocodias, Polyb. xu. 14, 7, 
extimrey Tov KaShkovtos. ‘The Alex- 
andrian form of aor. éemréoare is noticed 
and illustrated by exx. in Winer, Gr. 
§ 13. 1, p. 68 sq.; compare Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 724. 

5. fmets yap] ‘For we,’ proof of 
the preceding assertion by a declaration 
e contrario of the attitude of hope and 
expectancy, not of legal reliance and 
self-confidence, which was the charac- 
teristic of the Apostle and of all true 
Christians. If 8 had been used, the 
opposition between jmuezs and ofrives 
(iuezs) would have been more prominent 
than would seem in harmony with the 
context and with the conciliatory char- 
acter of the present address, 


120 


Tvetvparti] ‘by the Spirit, ‘Spiritu,’ 
Vulg., Clarom., with an implied con- 
trast to the oapt which was the active 
principle of all legal righteousness ; 
comp. ch. iii. 3, and notes in loc. The 
dative is not equivalent to év Mvevpati 
(Copt.), still less to be explained as 
merely adverbial, ‘spiritually’ (Middl. 
in loc.), but, as the context suggests, 
has its definite ablatival force and dis- 
tinct personal reference; our hope flows 
from faith, and that faith is imparted 
and quickened by the Holy Spirit. No 
objection can be urged against this in- 
terpr. founded on the absence of the 
article, as neither the canon of Middle- 
ton (Gr. Art. p. 126, ed. Rose), nor the 
similar one suggested by Harless ( Ephes., 
ii. 22.), — that 7d Tvedua is the personal 
Holy Spirit, rvejua the indwelling in- 
fluence of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 5), can 
at all be considered of universal applica- 
tion; see ver. 16. It is much more 
natural to regard Ivedua, Mvetua &yiov, 
and Ilvedua @cod as proper names, and 
to extend to them the same latitude in 
connection with the article; see Fritz. 
Rom. viii. 4, Vol. 11. p. 105. ex 
amlaotews| ‘from faith, as the origin 
and source (comp. notes on ch. iii. 22), 
—in opposition to the évy vouw of the 
preceding clause, which practically in- 
cludes the more regular antithesis é€ 
epyov. éAmida Sixatoct- 
yns| ‘the hope of righteousness.’ ‘This 
is one of those many passages in the 
N. T. (see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 168) 
in which it is difficult to decide whether 
the genitive is swbjecti or objecti ; the ev 
51a Svoiv, ‘spem et justitiam (zternam),’ 
suggested by Aquinas, being clearly in- 
admissible. If (a) the gen. be sudjecti, 
€Arida Sixaioo, must be ‘ipsum pre- 
mium quod speratur, sc. vitam eter- 
nam’ (Grot.), coronam gloriz que jus- 
tificatos manet’ (Beza), éAms being used 
petwruuixa@s for the thing hoped for: 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 5. 


if (8) objecti, then simply ‘speratam 
justitiam,’ the hope which turns on 
dicatoovvyn as its object, — fairly para- 
phrased by Aith., ‘we hope we may be 
justified ;? sim. Tynd., Cran. Of these 
(8) seems clearly most in accordance 
with the context, as this turns not so 
much upon any adjunct to dicaoodvy as 
upon Sixaootvy itself; ‘Ye,’ says St. 
Paul, in ver. 4, ‘think that ye are al- 
ready in possession of Sixaoo. (dia- 
ovode), we on the contrary hope for it.’ 
There is no difficulty in d:caootvn thus 
being represented future. For in the 
first place this view necessarily results 
from the contrast between Judaism and 
Christianity. The Jew regarded d:xaoo. 
as something outward, present, realiza- 
ble; the Christian as something inward, 
future, and, save through faith in Christ, 
unattainable. And in the second place, 
dixatootvn is one of those divine results 
which, as Neander beautifully expresses 
it, ‘stretch into eternity:’ it conveys 
with it and involves the idea of future 
blessedness and glorification ; ods éd:«ai- 
woeyv TovTous Kal éddtacev, Rom. viii. 30; 
see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 478 
note (Bohn). éAmida amex- 
dexdmedal ‘tarry for, ‘patiently 
wait for.” This expressive compound 
has two meanings (a) Jocal, with refer- 
ence either tothe place from which the 
expectation is directed to its object (‘in 
quo locatus aliquem expectes,’ Fritz.), 
or, more usually, the place whence the 
object is expected to come (‘unde quid 
expectaretur,’ Winer), — a decided trace 
of which meaning may be observed in 
Phil. iii. 20: (4) ethical, with ref. to 
the assiduity of the expectation, ‘ studi- 
ose constanter expectare,’ — the mean- 
ing in the present case and appy. in all 
the remaining passages in the N. T.; 
comp. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7, Heb. 
ix, 28, 1 Pet. iii. 20 (Lachm., Tisch. ), 
and see Tittmann, Synon. p. 106, Fritz. 


Cuap. V. 6. 


GALATIANS. 


121 


> n| > 

* é€v yap Xpiot@ “Incod odte repitoun tu ioxyver ote axpoBue- 
4 > X 

Tia, ara TiaTis Ov ayaTrns Evepyoupéern. 


Opuse. p. 156, Winer, Verb. Comp. 
Fase. tv. p. 14. It may be added 
that the expression éAmid. dred. is not 
pleonastic for éAm. dix. Zxouev (Ust., 
comp. ith.), but, as Fritz. observes, 
forcible and almost poetical (Eur. Alcest. 
130, éAmida mpoocdéxwuat), €Amida being 
the cognate accus. ; comp. Acts. xxiv. 15, 
éAtlda ... hy kal adrol osto: mpocdéxov- 
rat, Lit. ii. 13, mpoodexdmevor Thy paxa- 
play Amida. The whole clause may be 
thus paraphrased: ‘by the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit we are enabled to cher- 
ish the hope of being justified, and the 
source out of which that hope springs 
is faith ;? comp. Ust. Lehrd. u. 1, p. 90 
sq-, and fora fuller explanation of the 
verse, Chillingworth, Works, p. 402 sq. 
(Lond. 1704), Manton, Serm., Vol. tv. 
p. 927 sq. (Lond. 1698). 

6. &y yap Xptore@ "Ina.] ‘For in 
Christ Jesus ;’ confirmation of the pre- 
ceding statement that the damexdoy} was 
éx tiotews; when there is a union wich 
Christ, neither circumcision or uncir- 
cumcision avails anything, but faith 
only; it is clear, then, why we entertain 
the hope of righteousness from faith. 
The solemn formula éy Xp. Inc. is not 
to be explained away, as ‘in Christi 
regno, ecclesia’ (Pareus), ‘ Christi re- 
ligione’ (Est.), ‘Christi lege’ (Grot.), 
— all of which fall utterly short of the 
true meaning, — but, as the regular use 
of é€y Xp. and the addition of “Inaod 
distinctly suggest, conveys the deeper 
idea of ‘ union, fellowship, and incorpo- 
ration’ in Christ crucified : comp. notes 
on ch. ii. 17. For an elaborate but 
wholly insufficient explanation of the 
vital expression éy Xp., comp. Fritz. Rom. 
viii. 1, Vol. 11. p. 82, and contrast with 
it the deep and spiritual illustrations of 
Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 2, 3. 


d0 aydans évepyoupérvn] ‘ener- 
gizing, displaying its activity through 
love,’ (aoa Seixvura: Theoph., ‘ efficax 
est,’ Bull, Andrewes (Serm. v. Vol. 111. p. 
193); comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, rod Kérov Tis 
aydrns, Polye. ad Phil. § 3, rlotw.... 
émaxodousovens THs €Amidos mpoayovons 
Tijs aydarns, and see esp. Ust.~Lehrd. 
11. 1. 4, p. 236 sq., and reff. in notes on 
1 Thess. t. c. The verb évepyetaSa: may 
have two meanings, (a) passive, ‘is made 


° - a 
perfect,’ lj So. Ao» [que perficitur, 


Schaaf, but see Capell. im Joc.] Syr., 
‘adschueghyal,’ Arm., — maintained by 
the older Romanist divines, Bellarm. al. 
(see Petav. de Incarn. viu. 12. 15, Vol. 
v. p. 407), as well as several Protestant 
interpreters, Hammond, al., and even 
the recent editors of Steph. Thesaur. 
8. V.; or (d) active, ‘2s operative,’ Vulg., 
Clarom., Goth., Copt.,— as maintained 
by nearly all recent commentators, Of 
these (a) is perfectly lexically tenable 
(Polyb. Hist. 1. 13, 5, évepye?rat méAe- 
pos), but distinctly at variance with the 
usage of the word in the N. T. (see 
Meyer, 2 Cor. i. 6, Bretsch. Lez. s. v.), 
while (5) harmonizes with the prevail- 
ing usage, and can be correctly distin- 
guished from the active; évepyeiv being 
‘vim exercere, and commonly applied 
to persons, évepyeiodat ‘ex se (aut suam) 
vim exercere,’ a species of what has been 
called the ‘dynamic’ middle (Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 52.8), and commonly applied 
to things, see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 17, 
Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. Al- 
though the pass. meaning is not now 
maintained by the best critical scholars 
of the Church of Rome, the passage is 
no less strongly claimed as a testimony 
to the truth of the Tridentine doctrine 
(Sess. vi. c. 7) of jides formata ; see 


16 


122 


Who perverted you? 
Whosoever they are they 
shall be punished, for their 
doctrine is not mine. Yea, 


Windischm. én Joc., and comp. Mohler, 
Symbolik, § 16, p. 131 note, § 17, p. 
137. 

7. érpéxete nkar@s] ‘Ye were 
running well ;’ forcible and yet natural 
transition from the brief statement of 
the characterizing principle of Christian 
life, once exemplified in the Galatians, 
but now lost sight of and perverted ; 
ératvet Toy Spduov Kal Spyvet rod Spduov 
Thv mavAav, Theod. tls bmas 
évéxowev] ‘who did hinder you;’ 
not without some expression of surprise, 
mas 5 tocodtos évexdmn Spduos; tis 6 
rocodrov icxvoas, Chrys.; comp. ch. iii. 
1. The primary meaning of the verb 
éynéarew (Ilesych. évexomrdunv: évetro- 
diCduny, Suid. dvayatice dvamwodicer 
éyxémra) appears to be that of hinder- 
ing by breaking up a road (e. g. Greg. 
Nazianz. Or. xvi. p. 260, } kaxias éyxor- 
Touervns Svoradveta TY Tovnuay, 7) apeTijs 
dSomoovmévns evmadela Tov BedTiOvwr ; 
comp. ‘intercidere,’ e.g. Czes. Bell. Gall. 
11. 9, pontem, etc.) ; while that of dvaxdé7- 
tew (Rec.) is rather that of hindrance 
with the further idea of thrusting back ; 
compare Hom. Odyss. xx1. 47, Supéwv 
avéexonrev dxjoas. The reading of Ree. 
(avéxoev) is, however, opposed to all 
the uncial MSS., and appy. to nearly all 
mss. and Ff., and neither on internal 
(opp. to Bloomf.) nor external grounds 
has any claim on attention. The accus. 
is similarly found with éyxérrew, Acts 
xxiv. 4, 1 Thess. ii. 18; see also The- 
mist. Or. xiv. p. 181 ©. TH 
GAnds why welSerdai| ‘that ye 
should not obey the truth;’ infin. ex- 
pressive of the result or effect, with 
some trace of the purpose or end con- 
templated, this being one of those forms 
of the ‘ consecutive’ sentence, which may 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 7, 8. 


“"Etpéxete Karas tis twas évéxorev TH 
anyyela pn etSeoar; 


I wish they would cease from all communion with you. 


8 ¢ \ > > 
7] TTELG {LOV72) OUK €K 


be regarded as partly odjective and as 
partly jinal; see Donalds. Gr. § 602. 
The popular explanation that pw} with 
the infin., after certain negative and 
prohibitive verbs, is pleonastic (Meyer 
compare Herm. Viger, No. 271), is now 
justly called in question (see esp. Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 668), the true expla- 
nation being that the ud is prefixed to 
the infinitive, whether in its more sim- 
ply objective form (Donalds. Gr. § 584 
sq-), or its more lax and general ref. to 
result (Bernh., Synt. 1x. 6. b, p. 364, 
Madvig, Synt. § 156. 4), to indicate the 
further idea of some latent purpose in- 
volved in the action which specially 
contemplated or tended to the effect 
expressed by the infinitive; see esp. 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 181. 2, p: 359, and 
for an illustrative example compare 
Aristoph. Paz, 315, éumodav july yévn- 
Tat Thy Sedy wh ekeAnvoa ; see Madvig, 
Synt. § 210. The elliptical mode of 
explanation adopted by Gayler (de Par- 
tic. Neg. p. 359) in the parallel expres- 
sions d&pvodua wh Spaca, sc. ‘nego, et 
dico me non fecisse’ is appy. doubtful in 
principle, and certainly is not here ap- 
plicable. Lachm, omits the article 
before aAnS. but only with AB, and 
appy. a few mss. 

8. Tetcporvnh] ‘the persuasion,’ 
‘suasio,’ Clarom., scil. ‘servandi lega- 
lia,’ Lyra; the subst. being regarded as 
active, and the article (not ‘this pers.’ 
Arm., Auth.,—a most doubtful usage 
in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 18. 1, p. 
97 sq.) marking the particular (coun- 
ter-) persuading of the false teachers 
implied in the tis duds évéxoper. Ow- 
ing to the apparent paronomasia, and 
the nature of the termination (compare 
Donalds. Craty/. § 255) the meaning of 


Cuap. V. 8, 9. 


GALATIANS. 123 


— 


ToD KadovvTos buds. *° pixpa bun Grov TO gvpapa Cupol. 


meisuov)) is slightly doubtful. As the 
similar form mAnouov) means both sa- 
tietas (the state) and expletio (the act), 
Col. ii. 23, Plato, Symp. 186 c, ma. Kad 
Kévwots, — SO Teicuovy May mean (a) the 
state of being persuaded, 7. e. ‘ conviction’ 
(@cos Ta kadrciv 7d SE mefSeoSa Tay bra- 
xovdytwy, Theod.), or (6) the act of per- 
suading ‘ persuadendi sollertia,’ Schott. ; 
comp. Chrys. on 1 Thess. i. 4, ob wesopovh 
avSpwmimn... Iv hf... melSovoa, Of 
these (a) has here the support of the 
Greek expositors 7d meso Sivan Tots Aéyou- 
ow, Gicum., compare Chrys., Theoph.), 
and certainly on that account. deserves 
consideration ; (4) however, is to be pre- 
ferred, as lexically defensible (see below), 
as in harmony with the active tod 
kaAdobvTos; 7) Ten. pointing to a gra- 
cious act in which the human will is 
regarded more as subjected to the divine 
influence (John vi. 44), rod Kad. to one 
in which it is regarded more as free; 
comp. Meyer in Joc. In three out 
of the four instances cited by Wetst. 
from Eustath. (ad Il. a, p. 21. 46; 99. 
45, It. 1, p. 637.5), the prevailing mean- 
ing appears to be ‘pervicacia;’ but in 
Justin Mart. Apol. 1, 53, adrapreis eis 
meicuovhy, Epiphan. Hares, xxx. 21, eis 
Weicwoviy THs EavTav TAnpopoplas, Apol- 
lon. de Synt. p. 195. 10, rhv €& GAAhAwY 
mpods GAAhAovs meiopovhy, the active 
meaning is sufficiently distinct. Imgnat. 
Rom, 3, is commonly adduced, but here 
Cod. Colb. reads oiwmijs. ovK 
éx Tov KadodvTos| ‘is not from 
him who calleth you,’ t. e. does not ema- 
nate, does not result from, see note, ch. 
ii. 16; not an answer to the preceding 
question, which is rather an expression 
of surprise than a mere interrogation, — 
but a warning declaration. The 6 xa- 
Aév is obviously not St. Paul (Locke), 
not even Christ (Theoph.), but as usual, 


God; the act of calling in St. Paul’s 
Epp. (e.g. Rom. ix. 11, 24; 1 Cor. i, 
9, vii. 15, al.) being regularly ascribed 
to the Father; see notes and reff. on 
ch. 1.6. The tense of the participle 
need not be pressed either as a definite 
pres. (‘non desinit etiam nunc vocare,’ 
Beza), or, still less probably as an im- 
perf. (‘qui vos vocabat,’ Beng.),— 6 xa- 
aay, as Chrys. appears to have felt (od« 
éxdAeoev Suds 6 kada@v), being only the 
common substantival participle; see the 
numerous exx. collected by Winer, Gr. | 
§ 45. 7, p. 316, comp. Bernhardy, Syné. 
vi. 23, p. 318, Madvig, Syntax, § 180. b, 
and notes on. 1 Thess. v. 24. 

9, wixpa Cvun x. T.A.] ‘a Little 
leaven leaveneth the whole lump ;’ pro- 
verbially expressed warning (compare 1 
Cor. v. 7), forming a sort of antithetical 
continuation of what has preceded. It 
is somewhat doubtful whether (uz is to 
be considered as (a) having an adstract 
reference to the false teaching (7d waipdy 
tovto kaxdv, Chrys. ; compare Theoph.), 
or as (d) pointing in the concrete (‘hi 
pauci,’ Pareeus; compare Aug., Jerome) 
to those who disseminated it; see Clem. 
Hom. vut. 17 (cited by Hilgenf.), where 
the race of men living before the flood 
are characterized as a kar (iun. On 
the one hand, (a) yields a pertinent 
sense, and is appy. confirmed by Matth. 
xvi. 11, and by 1 Cor. 7. c. (where ver. 
8 seems distinctly to show that (dun 
does not mean the individual so much 
as his sin): on the other, the active 
meaning assigned to meimuovyj, and still 
more the seeming quantitative limitation 
hinted at in the use of the individualiz- 
ing singular in ver. 10 (compare Beng.) 
appears to preponderate in favor of (0). 
We adopt, therefore, the concrete refer- 
ence, and necessarily continue it to the 
following gvpaua; ‘vel pauci homines 


124 GALATIANS. 


7 
‘Cuap. V. 10, 11. 


0 gym mémoa eis buds ev Kupio dtu oddev dAdo Hpovncete 6 5é 
U tsb , \ a v4 x > ph Rh: Er i. 
Tapaccwr twas Baotdce TO Kpipa, doTis av 7. * ey@ dé, ader- 


perperam docentes possent omnen [totum] 
cetum corrumpere,’ Winer én loc. 

10. éy6] ‘I for my part ;’ emphatic, 
and not without a reassuring contrast. 
The insertion of 5¢ [CIFG; a few mss. ; 
Demid., Aug., Syr.-Phil., al] is due to 
the desire to make this contrast still 
more apparent. eis bas] 
‘with regard to you;’ this more lax use 
of eis is noticed by Winer, Gr. § 53, p. 
473, and Bernh. Syné. v. 11. p. 220. 
The addition of the words év Kupiw (sc. 
*Incovd, Rom. xiv. 14, compare Winer, 
Gr.§ 19. 1, p. 118) serves to designate 
the ground of the hope, and to show that 
it was not an earthly and doubtful, but 
a heavenly (Phil. ii. 24) and certain 
assurance which St. Paul entertained ; 
compare 2 Thess. iii. 4, remoiSauev 5é ev 
Kupiw ep’ duds, where ém is used in a 
sense little different from the present eis, 
to denote the objects about whom the 
hope was felt, év Kup. the nature of that 
hope; see notes on 2 Thess. 1. c., where 
distinctions are drawn between the ethi- 
cal uses of efs, éwf, and mpés. 
ovdév AAO] ‘nothing else,’ — than 
what? Either specially,—than the 
subject and purport of the words imme- 
diately preceding ; or, generally, — than 
the doctrines which St. Paul had pro- 
pounded. The latter accords best with 
the future ppovnoere, Which seems more 
naturally used in reference to the general 
issue (67: SiopSéocecSe, Chrys.), than 
merely to the time when the words 
would be read. Alf. refers to Phil. iii. 
15 (compare Usteri, ‘no novel senti- 
ments’), but there the word is érépws ; 
see notes zn loc. 6 8 rapdo- 
awv| ‘but he that disturbeth you ;’ 
contrast, not with the preceding éydé 
(Riick.), but generally with the expres- 
sion of confidence which has just pre- 


ceded; 6 tapdoo. not being used on the 


one hand, for of tapdocovtes (Brown), 
nor on the other, in ref. to some one par- 
ticulur false teacher (Olsh.; contrast 
Davids. Introd. Vol. 11. p. 315), but in 
accordance with the exact selective and 
definitive force of the article, to the one 
who, for the time being, comes under 
observation. Oi tapdooovres tuas 
(ch. i. 7) are the class generally, 6 ra- 
pdoowy is the individual of the class 
who may happen to call forth the Apos- 
tle’s censure; émrjjpe roy Adyov, Chrys. 3 
compare Madvig, Synt. § 14. 
Baotdoet Td Kptpal ‘shell bear 
(‘ut grave onus,’ Beng.), the judgment 
(he deserves) ;’ kptua not being equiva- 
lent to katdxpiua, nor used as cause for 
effect, sc. punishment’ (Schott, Olsh.), 
but retaining its proper meaning both 
here and Rom. ii. 3, al. and with app. 
ref. to the judgment which he will re- 
ceive from God ; Sixas dpeiAovet TS OG, 
Theod. The idea of ‘ punishment,’ or 
‘condemnation,’ is conveyed by, and to 
be deduced from the context; see Fritz. 
Rom. tl. ce. Vol. 1. p. 94. bots 
uv 7] ‘whoever he may be ;’ not with 
any reference to the dignity of the 
momentarily-selected individual (xay 
meyddo twes Soxa@or Kal akidmioro, 
Theoph.), but simply with the énclu- 
sive reference of the formula; comp. 
Acts. iii. 23. 

ll. éyd 8€ G&deAGol] ‘But I, 
brethren,’ — with abrupt reference to 
what might have been said of himself, 
The connection between this and the 
preceding verse is not perfectly clear. 
The use of the expression 6 tapdocwv 
appears to have suggested the remem- 
brance that he himself was open to the 
charge of being a subverter, inasmuch 
as he had circumcised Timothy. The 


? Ane 
os. o ail 


~Cuap. V. 11. 


GALATIANS. 


125 


>’ / 7 
pot eb mepitopny Ett Knpicoe, Th étt Si@bKopat; dpa KaTHpynTtat 


replication is final and decisive; ‘But 
if it be a fact that I really do still 
preach ctirewmcision, what further ground 
is there for persecuting me?’ 7. e. ‘the 
very fact of my persecution is a proof 
that I am not a preacher of circumci- 
sion ;’ see esp. ‘lheoph. in doc. 

mepit. rt nnptvaocel] ‘If I 
preach circumcision,’ ‘if, as is assumed 
to be a matter of fact (compare notes on 
ch. i. 9), eireumeision is still what I 
preach ;? the emphasis resting not on 


> 
€t 


Knpvoow (TouTéoriy ovK oft KeAcUw TiC- 
Tevew .. TepieTenov uhv yap [Tov Tyd- 
Seor], ove exhpvta St weptounv, Chrys.), 
but on the prominently placed repirousiv. 
The 27: does not suggest any contrasted 
reference to the period before the coming 
of Christ (‘still—as in the ante-Chris- 
tian times,’ Olsh.),— a reference which 
would here be very pointless, nor again 
to any special change in the Apostle’s 
teaching since he had become a Chris- 
tian, — for which there is not the sligh¢- 
est grounds, but simply to the period 
prior to his conversion, ‘ s¢z//, in contrast 
to my former Judaism ;’ comp. Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 206 note. The Apostle might 
not have ‘ preached’ circumcision before 
his conversion, but he strenuously advo- 
cated (repiocotépws (nrwths irdpxwy Tov 
TaTptkayv pov mapaddcewrv, ch. i. 14) all the 
principles of Judaism; comp. Neander, 
Planting, p. 304, note. The present 
tense is probably used, as Schott ob- 
serves, from his having the present ac- 
cusation of his adversaries in his mind. 
tl ért BidKopat] ‘why am I still 
persecuted, almost ‘why am I to be,’ 
etc. ; this second é7: being, as De Wette 
observes, logical; see Rom. iii. 7, ri 2% 
Kayo Gs auaptwArdvs Kplvoua, ‘what fur- 
ther ground is there for,’ etc., Rom. ix. 
19, al. uipa] ‘then after all,’ 
_fergo,’ Vulg., Clarom. (see Hand, Tur- 


sell. Vol. 11. p. 450 sq.) ; inference from 
what has preceded, not perhaps here 
without some tinge of ironical reference 
to a conclusion that could not have been 
expected. The fundamental idea of dpa 
is ‘distance or progression (to another 
step in the argument)’; from which 
the derivative meaning, — that at the 
advanced point at which we have ar- 
rived, our present view is different to 
our antecedent one, can easily be de- 
duced ;’ see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 192. 
That this, however, is the normal and 
primary idea of the particle (see Har- 
tung, Partik. &pa, 1.3, Vol. 1. p. 422) 
cannot now be maintained; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 1. p. 160 sq., where the 
whole question is discussed at great 
length. According to this writer, &pa 
involves ‘ significationem levioris cujus- 
dam ratiocinationis, que indicat rebus 
ita comparatis, aliquid ita aut esse aut 
fieri,’ in Devar. p. 167. The inter- 
rogatory form (apa), as adopted by Syr., 
Ust., al., seems here less forcible and 
appropriate. Td oxdvdador 
Tov aotavpodl| ‘the offence of the 
cross,’ ‘offendiculum crucis,’ Beza; the 
offence which the Jews took at Chris- 
tianity, because faith in a crucified 
Saviour, — faith without legal observ- 
ances, was alone offered as the means 
of salvation; ovd¢ yap oftws 6 otavpds 
hv oxavdadrtCwy tos “Iovdatouvs as Td 
bh deiv meiSeoSa: Tots marpsos vduots, 
Chrys. ; compare 1 Cor, i. 18, etc., see 
Brown, Galat. p. 278, Usteri, Lehrd. u. 
2.1, p. 253. Sxavdadrov, though occur- 
ring (quotations included) 15 times in 
the N. T. and 25 times in the LXX and 
Apocrypha, is scarcely ever found ‘ apud 
profanos.” ZxavddanXpov 1rd éviotdue- 
vov Tats pudypas, Poll, Onomast. x. 34, 
occasionally occurs; ¢. g. in a metaphor- 
ical sense, Aristoph. Acharn. 687. 


126 


GALATIANS. 


Cnap. V. 12. 


a \ 4 ru 9 
TO oKxavoarov TOU oTavpod. ™ dpedov Kal amoKOYpovTaL ol avac- 


TATOUVTES UpUAs. 


12. ipeAov] ‘I would that ;’ indig- 
nant wish called forth by the last 
deduction, and by the thought of the 
antagonism of circumcision to the cross 
of Christ; see Ewald zn Joc., and com- 
pare ch. ii, 21. This word is used 
purely as a particle, both in the N. T. 
(see 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1), and in 
the LXX, e. g. Exod. xvi. 3, Numb. xiv. 
2, xx. 8, Psalm exviii. 5; see Winer, 
Gr. § 41. 5, 2, p. 270, Sturz, de Dialect, 
Maced. s. v. § 12. Its construction, 
therefore, here with a future, though 
unusual and (appy. according to Lucian, 
Solec. 1) soleecistic, need not have 
caused Bengel to alter the punctuation 
(73 oKdvSarov Tov oravpov: deAov.), 
and to connect dpeAoyv as a kind of ex- 
clamation (‘velim ita sit!’) with what 
precedes. On the similar use of &épedrov 
and &eAe in later writers, comp. Matth. 
Gr. § 513. obs. 3, and on the correct and 
classical use (‘ &peAoy non nisi tum adhi- 
beri, quum quis optat, ut fuerit aliquid, 
vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit, 
aut est, aut futurum est’), see Herm. 
Viger, No. 190. kal aroKnd- 
Wovrat| ‘they would even cut themselves 
off (from you).’ The exact meaning of 
these words has been much discussed. 
The usual passive translation (‘ abscin- 
dantur,’ Vulg., Goth., appy. Syr. 
[Schaaf], Aith.-Platt, Arm.), cannot 
be defended, as the N. T. furnishes no 
certain instance of a similar enallage. 
The most plausible is 1 Cor. x. 2, ral 
mavtes éBarticavto, but even here the 
middle voice (sc. ‘baptismum suscepe- 
runt,’ Beng.) may be correctly main- 
tained; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4, p. 228, 
and exx. in Jelf, Gr. § 364.4.a. We 
have thus only two possible translations, 
(a) ‘I would that they would even cut 
themselves off (plane discedant) from 


communion with you,’ Bretschn.; or 
(B) ‘I would that they would (not only 
circumcise, but) even castrate them- 
selves ;’ wh mwepireuversxwoav pdouov, GAA 
xal a&moxotrécSwoay, Chrys., amoxdmous 
éavtous érolnoay, CAcum.: see exx, in 
Wetst. im doc. ‘This latter reference to 
bodily mutilation is adopted by the prin- 
cipal patristic expositors, as well as by 
most modern writers; and it must be 
admitted that thus not only xa} is more 
readily explained, and the expression of 
the wish (dpedAov) more easily accounted 
for, but that there is also a species of 
parallelism in the use of kararouhy, 
Phil. iii. 2, Still as there seems no cer- 
tain trace of this corporeal reference in 
any of the ancient Vv.,—as in some 
(A&th.-Platt, and perhaps Arm.) the 
reference seems plainly ethical, — as there 
is a seeming contrast in the cadely em) of 
the confirmatory clause which follows, 
and as this seems alone suited to the 
earnest gravity with which St, Paul 
is here addressing his converts, we adopt 
somewhat unhesitatingly the former in- 
terpretation. The Apostle’s deep in- 
sight into the exact spiritual state of the 
Galatians, and the true affection that 
throughout the Epistle tempers even his 
necessary severity, leads him here to ex- 
press as a wish, what he might have 
(as in 1 Cor. v. 11) urged as a com- 
mand: comp. Waterl., Works, Vol. m1. 
p. 458. 
‘they who are unsettling you, Hamm., 
se. * your subverters ;’ the participle with 
its case becoming by means of the arti- 
cle a kind of substantive; sce notes and 
reff. on ch. i, 23. The verb dvacraroiy 
(Hesych. évarpérew) occurs three times 
in the N. T. (Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38) as 
an equivalent of the more usual avdera- 
tov woeiv, but is of rare occurrence 


¢ 2 Ce 
Ol AVYaCTAT. buas| 


Cuap. V. 18, 14. 


Do not misuse your free- 
dom, but love one another. 
Love is the fulfilment of 
the law; hatred brings de- 
struction. 


ots. 


(Wetst. on Acts xvii. 6), and is said to 
belong to that somewhat numerous class 
of words (Tittm. Synon. p. 266) which 
are referred to the Macedonian dialect; 
see Sturz, de Dial. Maced. § 9, p. 146. 
It has a stronger meaning than rapdcow, 
and is admirably paraphrased by Chrys., 
ard Tis &vw ‘Iepovcadhm Kal Tis eAevdé- 
pas éxBaddvres, BiaCduevor BE naddzrep 
aixnadrdérous kal petavdoras wAavaosat. 
13. buets yap] ‘For ye;’ com- 
mencement of a new paragraph, and 
according to Olsh., De W., al., of a 
new portion (the hortatory) of the Epis- 
tle; évradSa Aomdy Soxe? pev eis roy 
ASindy euBalvew Adyov, Chrys. St. Paul 
knew so well the human heart, its ten- 
dencies and temptations, and saw so 
clearly how his own doctrine of Chris- 
tian liberty might be perverted and 
adulterated, that he at once hastens, 
with more than usual earnestness, to 
trace out the ineffaceable distinction be- 
tween true spiritual freedom, and a car- 
nal and antinomian license. There is, 
however, no marked or abrupt division, 
but one portion of the epistle passes in- 
sensibly into the other. yap is 
thus not illative (Turner), nor a mere 
particle of transition (Brown), but stands 
in immediate connection with the pre- 
ceding words, which it serves to confirm 
and justify ; ‘and I may well wish that 
they would cut themselves off from your 
communion, for ye were called to a state 
with which they have nothing in com- 
mon. The reading 8¢, found in FG; 
80; Chrys., Aug., al., seems a very pal- 
pable correction. ém é€dAeuse- 
pla] ‘for freedom ;’ ém here denoting 
the purpose or object for which they were 
called; compare 1 Thess. iv. 7, ob yap 


GALATIANS. 


127 


6 “Tyeis yap ér édrevSepla €xd7SytTe, adenr- 
got povov pr THY édXevSeplav eis adopyny Th 
capki, adda Sia Tis aydarns SovdeveTE AAX?- 
“6 yap Tas vomos ev evil déyw TeTANpwTal, ev TO 


exdreoev buds 6 Ocds em) dxadapcia, 
where see notes in Joc. Further exx. 
will be found in Winer, Gr. § 48. ¢, p. 
351, and in Rost. u. Palm, Lew. s. v. 11. 
2. f, Vol. 1. p. 1040. Ky Thy 
éAcudseplav] ‘make not your liberty ;’ 
scil. roieire, tpémere [not, however, used 
in N. T.], dare (FG; Boern., al), or 
some similar verb. Instances of this 
very intelligible and idiomatic omission 
of the verb after uy are cited by Har- 
tung, Partik. uh, 6. b. 4, Vol. 1. p. 153, 
Klotz. Devar. Vol. 1. p. 669, Winer, 
Gr. § 66. 1. 5, p. 663: compare Hor. 
Epist. 1. 5. 12, *Quo mihi fortunas, si 
non conceditur uti.’ Such ellipses must 
of course be common in every cultivated 
language. 
‘by the love ye evince,’ ‘by your love ;’ 
not ‘in your love’ (Peile), with any 
reference to state or condition (compare 
Rom. iv. 11, 5? a&xpoBvorias, viii. 25, 6? 
brouovys, al.; Winer, Gr. § 47. i, p. 
339), but simply ‘ per caritatem,’ Vulg., 
Armen. [instrumental case], Copt. ; love 
was to be the means by which their re- 
ciprocal SovAeia was to be shown. 


51a THS ayarns] 


The reading tH aydrn Tod TMvetuaros, 
found in DEFG; 81; Clarom., Goth., 
Copt. [Wilk., but not Bottich.]; Bas., 
al., is in addition suggested by the pre- 
ceding capkdés. SovAeve Te] 
‘be in bondage,’ ‘servite,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom.; in antithesis to the preceding 
erevSeplav: ovK elev ayaware GAANAOUS, 
&wA@s, GAAG SovAEedETE, Thy emiTETA- 
pévnv SndGy pirtay, Chrys. 

14.6 yap mwas vopos| ‘For the 
whole law ;’ confirmation from Scripture 
of the command immediately preceding, 
Sia THs aydrns K. 7. A. A few instances 
of this order occur in the N. T.; see 


GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 14, 15. 


128 


*"Ayaryoes Tov TAnCIov Gov ws ceavToV, ™ ef S€ AAANAOUS SaK- 
veTE Kal KaTEDSieTE, PETrETE 11) UTTO GAAHA@V avahwre. 


14. geavtdv] Tisch, (ed. 2) here adopts the more difficult, though not wholly 
unusual reading éavrdy (see Winer, Gr. § 22. 5) too much in defiance of external 
authority. Seavrdy is supported by ABCDEK; very many mss.; Mare. ap. 
Epiph., Theodoret, Dam. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. Lachm.). ‘Eavtbv ap- 
pears only in FGJ ; appy. the majority of mss. ; Theophyl., Gcum., ( Mey., Tisch. ). 
Usteri very plausibly suggests the fallmg away of one of the contiguous sigmas 


in the course of transcription. 


Middl. Greek Art. ch. viz. p. 104, note 
where Rose cites Acts xx. 18, 1 ‘Tim. i. 
16 (sing.), Acts xix. 7 (plural); add 
Xxvii. 37. év évl Adyo| ‘in 
one word,’ scil. in one declaration or 
commandment: comp. Rom. xiii. 9. 

metwAHnpwrat| ‘hath been (and is) ful- 
filled. This reading is supported no 
less by external evidence [ABC; 6 
mss.; Mare. in Epiph., Damase. (2), 
Aug.| than by internal probability. 
While wAnpotdra: (Rec.) would imply 
that the process of fulfilment was still 
going on, the perfect memAhpwrat: suita- 
bly points to the completed and perma- 
nent act; comp. Rom. xiii. 8, 6 ayarav 
Toy ETEpoy vouov TeTANPwWKEV, — A Mean- 
ing of the perf. which Marcion (accord- 
ing to Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 4) appears, 
either ignorantly or wilfully, to have 
misunderstood, ‘ adimpleta est, quasi jam 
non adimplenda.’ It may be ob- 
served that there is no discrepancy 
between this passage and Matth. xxii, 
38, Mark xii. 29; for, as Meyer observes, 
St. Paul here takes a lofty spiritual 
eminence, from which, as it were, he 
sees all other commands so subordinated 
to the law of love, that he cannot con- 
sider the man who has fulfilled this in 
any other light than as having fulfilled 
the whole law: comp. Usteri, Lehrd. 11. 
1. 4, p. 242, Reuss, Théol. Chreét. tv. 19. 
Vol. u. p. 204 sq. The explanation of 
YVorstius and others wAnpotoda = avare- 
padraotodsa, Rom. xiii. 9, here falls far 
short of the full spiritual meaning of 


the passage, and also is at variance with 
the regular meaning of wAnp. in the 
N. T.; see Matth. iii. 15, Rom. viii. 4, 
xiii. 8, Col. iv. 17. &yaTh- 
oes] *Thou shalt love.” The use of the 
imperatival future appears in the N. T. 
under three forms; (a) as a mild im- 
perative, in simple prohibition ; compare 
Matth. vi. 5, od« Zon ds of droxpiral ; (b) 
as a strong imperative, including pro- 
hibition and reproof; compare Acts xiii. 
10, ob raton Siactpépwv tas 6d0bs Ku- 
piov; (c) as a legislative imperative, — 
both negatively (Matth,. v. 21, Rom. vii. 
7, al ), and positively, as here, and Rom. 
xiii. 9. The two former usages (which 
in fact may be considered as one, varied 
only by the tone of the speaker) are 
common in classical Greek, see Jelf, Gr. 
§ 413. 1, 2, Bernh. Synt. x. 5, p. 378: 
the latter seems distinctly Hebraistic ; 
comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. 11. 3. 3, p. 75, 
Winer, Gr. § 43. 5, p. 282. The uses 
of the future in the LXX appear to be 
very varied, and serve to express, nega- 
tively, quod non convenit (Gen. xx. 9), 
quod non potest (Gen. xxxii. 12: comp. 
Matth. iv. 4, al.), and positively, guod 
licet (Numb. xxxii. 24), quod solet 
(Deut. ii. 11). These are almost purely 
Hebraistic ;. see esp. Thiersch, de Pentat. 
1. § 11 sq. 

15. Sdevere kai rarecdilere| 
‘ bite and devour ;’ oix elwme, SAK VET E, 
Ldvov Strep eat) Supoupévov, GAAG Kad, K a- 
Teale e, drep dorly euuevovtos TH To- 
vnpia. 6 wey yap Sdxvey dpyns émAhpwoe 


Cuap. V. 16. 


Walk according to the 
Spirit, whose fruits no 


GALATIANS. 


129 


6 Aéyo 5é, TIvebparte mepirrateite Kal ér- 


law condemns; and not according to the flesh, the works of which exclude from the kingdom of God. 


masos: 6 dt kaTecSiwy Snpiwdias eoxarns 
mapéoxey amddeéw, Chrys. Instances of 
a similar use of Sdxvere are cited by 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 287, Wetst. in 
Joc. avakwahrte] ‘be con- 
sumed,’ ‘consumamini,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; 
continuation of the metaphor, there 
being appy. a species of climax in 
the three verbs Sdxvete, nareoSiere, and 
dvadwSijre. The meaning is sufficiently 
explained by Chrys., ) yap dSidoracis rad 
Hh eaxn PSoporody cat dvadrwrindy kal TOY 
dexouevwv althy, Kal cicaydvTwv. 

16. Aédyw 5é€] ‘Now I say.’ The 
Apostle now reverts to the first portion 
of the command in ver. 13, uh thy éAeu- 
Seplay eis apopuny TH capki. 
Mvetmare] ‘by the Spirit ;’ not exactly 
‘in (khen) the Spirit,’ Copt., still less 
‘Spiritui vitam consecrate’ (dat. com- 
modi; Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 225), but 
simply ‘ Spiritu,’ Vulg., Clarom., — the 
dative being here what is called the dat. 
norme, and indicating the metaphorical 
path, manner, or rule of the action; 
compare ch. vi. 16, Acts xv. 1, Phil. iii. 
16, and see Hartung, Casws, p. 79, 
Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. b, p. 193, Bernh. 
Synét. ut. 14, p. 102, and exx. collected 
by Fritz. Rom, xiii. 13, Vol. m1. p. 142. 
It is necessary to observe that Mvevuare 
is not ‘ after a heavenly or spiritual man- 
ner,’ Peile (kara ras mvevuarinas évtoAds, 
Schol. ap. Matth.), — a very insufficient 
paraphrase, nor even, ‘in accordance 
with indwelling grace’ (mveiua 5& rhy 
xdpiv, altn yap em ta 
KpeitTw mwodnyet Thy Wuxhv, Theod.), as 
all such cases tend to obscure the true 
nature of the contrast between Ivedua 
and godpt. Whenever these two words 
stand thus opposed, it has been satisfac- 
torily shown by Miiller (On Sin, Vol. 1. 
p. 354 sq., Clark,) that the [vedua is 
not either tle spiritual part of man (das 


17 


évoikovoay 


Geistige), or the human spirit, if even 
always strengthened by the Holy Spirit, 
—the ‘divinized spiritual’ (das Geist- 
liche; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 
u. p. 54), but the Holy Spirit itself, in 
so far as it is conceived the governing 
principle in man, the active and ani- 
mating principle of Christian life, the 
TIvedua tis (wis év Xp. Ino. Rom. viii. 
2, the TIv. Xpiorov, Iv. @ecod, tb. ver. 9; 
see also Neander, Planting, Vol. 1 p. 
467 (Bohn), and esp. Hofmann, Schriftd. 
Vol. 1. p. 254 sq. On the omission 
of the article, see notes on ver. 5, and 
on the meaning of mepimarety as imply- 
ing life in its regular and_ practical 
manifestations, see notes on Phil, iii. 
12, and on 4 Thess, iv. 12. 

émiduulav oaptds| ‘the desire of 
the flesh; scil. all the motions and 
desires of the merely natural man, all 
that tends to earth and earthiiness. 
The meaning of capt in this important 
and deeply suggestive passage deserves 
the reader’s careful consideration. The 
context seems clearly to show that here, 
as in many other passages in the N. T., 
capt is not merely the carnal as opposed 
to the spiritual, — the purely sensational 
part of man, but comprehends in a more 
general notion the whole ‘life and move- 
ment of man in the world of sense’ ( Miil- 
ler), or perhaps, to speak a little more 
precisely, the ‘ whole principle and realm 
of earthliness and earthly relations’ 
(cdpxa evtaida toy Aoyioudy Karel Toy 
yeo5n, Chrys.); selfishness, as Miiller 
has well observed, ever appearing in the 
background. The transition from this 
to the more definitely ethical notions of 
weakness, sin, and sensationalism, which 
Miiller has too much lost sight of (see 
notes on Col. ii. 11), is thus easy and 
natural; see esp. the good article of 
Tholuck, Stud, u. Krit. for 1855, p. 


130 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 17. 


Supiav capKos ov pi Terd€onte. “7 yap capE éemiSupet Kara 


17. tadta ydp] So Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1), with BDIEFG; 17; Vulg., 
Clarom., Copt., Arm.; Latin Ff. (Mey., Alf., Bagge),— and appy. correctly, as 
8é, though strongly supported, viz., by ACD®JK; nearly all mss.; Syr. (both), 
ZEth. (both) ; Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz) is much more 
likely to have been a change from yap (to avoid the seeming awkwardness of a 


repetition of the particle) than vicé versa. 


There is also some weight in the in- 


ternal evidence; the repetition of yap being so well-known a characteristic of the 


Apostle’s style. 


485—488, Miiller, On Sin, Vol. 1 p. 
350 sq. (Clark), and compare Beck, 
Seeleni. 11. 18, p. 53, Delitzsch, Bibi. 
Psychol. v. 6, p. 325 sq. ov pH 
teréanrte] ‘ye shall not accomplish ;’ 
‘non perficietis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; comp. 
Matth. x. 23, ob wh TeAéontre Tas méAets. 
This clause may be translated either 
(a) tmperatively ; nat being the simple 
copula joining two imperatival clauses, 
the first expressed affirmatively, the 
second negatively (Copt., Arm., A‘th., 
and more recently Hamm., Mey., al.), 
or (5) as a future, in which case xa) will 
be consecutive, and nearly equiv. to ‘ita 
fiet ut ;’ compare notes on Phil. iv. 42. 
Of these (a) is perfectly admissible on 
grammatical grounds; for the general 
principle —that od wh with the 2nd 
pers. fut. is prohibitive, and that, with 
the other persons of the future and all 
persons of the subj., it enounces a ne- 
gation, and not a prohibition (Hermann 
on Elmsl. Med. 1120, p. 391) — includes 
sso many scarcely doubtful exceptions 
even in classical Greek (see exx. in 
(Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 435), that it 
may be sometimes doubted whether the 
first negative both in od wy and ph od 
may not really be ‘oratorium magis 
quam logicum’ (Gayler). Be this as it 
may, it seems certain that in the later 
Greek and esp. in the LXX, this use 
of od uw} in nearly all combinations, but 
esp. with subj., is so very abundant (see 
exx. in Gayler, p. 440), that no gram- 
matical objections (opp. to Bloomf.) can 


be urged against the prohibitive usage. 
As, however, there is no distinct in- 
stance of such a construction in the 
N. T., and still more as the next verses 
seem more naturally to supply the rea- 
sons for the assertion than for the com- 
mand, it seems best with Vulg., Clarom., 
Syr., and appy. Goth. (see De Gabel. 
Gr. Goth. § 182.1. b. 3) to adopt the 
future translation. On the use of the 
subj. aor. for the future in negative 
enunciations, see notes and reff. on ch, 
iv. 30; and on the subject of the verse 
as limited to religious contentions, see 
2 sermons by Howe, Works, Vol. 11. 
p- 123 sq. (ed. Hewlett). 

17. hf yap capé x. 7. A.] ‘for the 
flesh lusteth against the Spirit ;’ reason 
for the foregoing declaration that walk- 
ing after the Spirit will preclude the 
fulfilling the lusts of the flesh ; ‘ merito 
hoe addit cum in uno et eodem homine 
regenerato sit caro et Spiritus: cujus 
certamen copiosissime explicatur, Rom. 
vit. [15—20],’ Beza. In the following 
words the order dvtix. adAAdAos | Ree. 
with JK; mss.; Ff.] is rightly reversed 
with greatly preponderating authority. 
iva mw] ‘to the end that ye may not ;’ 
not ‘so that ye cannot do,’ Auth. (ob 
ém) aitlas elmev, GAN’ ws axdAovSov Kara 
Td oiketov idlwua, Theod.), but with the 
usual and proper (telic) force of iva ‘ut 
non qucunque vultis illa (ista, Cl.) 
faciatis,’ Vulg., Clarom., compare Goth., 
ZEth. ; the object and end of the 7d dy- 
TiuxetaSa on the part of each Principle 


Cuap. V. 17,18. 


GALATIANS,. 


131 


tov IIvevpatos, 76 6¢ TIvetpa cata tis capKes’ TadTa yap adXz1- 


Rows avtixertat, va wn & av SéAnTE TadTAa TrovAre. 


is to prevent man doing what the other 
Principle would lead him to; ‘7d Tvedua 
impedit vos, quo minus perficiatis 7a 77s 
capkds, contra 7 odpt adversatur vobis 
ubi 7a Tov Ilveduaros peragere studetis,’ 
Winer; see Fritz. Excurs. in Matth. p. 
838, Baur, Paulus, p. 533 sq.. and com- 
pare the very good remarks of Ham- 
mond, Serm. vu. Part 1. p. 123 (Angl. 
Cath., Libr.) where, although he quotes 
the eventual (ecbatic) sense of fa in 
translation he almost appears to adopt 
the final sense in his remarks and de- 
ductions. On the use of fa in the 
N. T., see notes on Eph. i. 17, Fritz. 
Ezxcurs. t.c., and Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, 
p- 406, and for a notice and example 
of its secondary-telic, or sub-final use, 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 4. Neither this 
derivative sense, however, nor any as- 
sumed eventual force (opp. to Ust. and 
De W.) is here to be ascribed to the 
particle, both being appy. inconsistent 
with the probable meaning of SéAnrte ; 
see next note. &&v SéaAnrTe] 
‘whatsoever ye may wish.’ This latter 
clause will admit of three different ex- 
planations, according as SéAnre is re- 
ferred to (a) the carnal will; John. viii. 
44, 1 Tim. v. 11; (4) the moral or better 
will, or (c) the free-will in its ordinary 
acceptation. Of these explanations, the 
first (2), though supported both by Chrys., 
Theod., and several distinguished mod- 
ern expositors (Bull, Harm. Ap. 1. 9. 
25 sq., Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
468, ed. Bohn), must still be pronounced 
logically inconsistent with rtadra yap 
GAA. avtix., Which seems rather to point 
to the opposition incurred than the vic- 
tory gained by the Spirit. The second 
(5), though perhaps in a less degree, is 
open to the same objection, notwith- 
standing the support it may be thought 


8 ef 66 I vev- 


to receive from Rom. vii. 15 sq., where 
SéAew seems to point to the imperfect 
though better will; see Calv., Schott, 
De W., who conceive that St. Paul is 
here expressing briefly what in Rom, 
i. c. he is stating more at length. The 
simple and logical connection of the 
words is, however, much better sup- 
ported by (¢), subject only to this neces- 
sary and obvious limitation, that this 
iodpporos udxn must be only predicated, 
in its full extent, of the earlier und 
more imperfect stages of a Chrisvian 
course; see Olsh. im doc. The stave of 
the true believer is conflict, but with final 
victory, — atruth that was felt even by 
the Jews, among whom Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, and more especially Joseph, were 
ever cited as instances of a victorious 
issue: Schoettg. de Lucté Carnis et 
Spiritus, m1. 10, 11 (Vol. 1. p. 1204.) 
18. ei 52 «.7.A.] ‘But if ye be led 
by the Spirit ;’ contrasted state to the 
struggle described in the preceding verse ; 
‘ubi vero Sp. vincit, acie res decernitur,’ 
Beng. When the Spirit becomes truly 
the leading and guiding principle, then, 
indeed, the doubtful struggle has ceased ; 
there would be no fulfilling of the works 
of the flesh, and by consequence no 
longer any bondage to the law ; compare 
Maurice, Unity of N. T., p. 510, and 
Baur, Paulus, p. 534, note. 
Tvetpati &yerse| ‘by the Spirit; 
instrumental dative; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 
6, aydueva emiSuulas moulAcus, and see 
Winer, Gr. § 31. 7, p. 194, and exx. 
collected by Kypke, Ods. Vol. 1. p. 172. 
Who can doubt, says Miiller (Doctr. 
Sin, Vol. 1. p. 355, Clark), that Tv. 
&yeod. here entirely corresponds in the 
mind of the Apostle with Rom. viii. 14, 
Tivetuart Ocod &yovra; and that thus 
the fuller and deeper meaning of Ivedua 


132 


\ / 
pate ayeoSe, ovK €oté w70 vopovr. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 19. 


® davepa O& éoTW Ta 


” a / e / b] / b] / > / 
Epya TIS TapKoOs, ATWa EOTLY TOpVela, akaSapoia, acenyela, 


must be maintained throughout this par- 
agraph. ovk éore brds vopor| 
‘ye are not under the law ;’ — not, on the 
one hand, because there is now no need 
of its beneficial influences (od Se?ra: ris 
amd rod vduov BonSelas, Chrys., al.), nor 
on the other, because it is now become 
an alien principle (Usteri, Lehrdb. 1. 4. 
A, p. 57), but simply — ‘ because it finds 
nothing in you to forbid or to condemn ;’ 
see ver. 23. The more obvious conclu- 
sion might have seemed, ‘ye are not 
under the influences of the flesh ;’? but 
as the law was confessedly the principle 
which was ordained against the influ- 
ences and épya tijs capxés (Rom. vii. 7 
sq.), the Apostle (in accordance with 
the general direction of his argument) 
draws his conclusion relatively rather to 
the principle, than to the mere state and 
influences against which that principle 
was ordained. 

19. pavepa dé] ‘But, to explain 
and substantiate more fully the last as- 
sertion (od é€oré brd vduov), the open 
difference between the works of the 
flesh (against which the law is ordained) 
and the fruit of the Spirit (against which 
there is no law) shall now be manifested 
by special examples.’ &riva 
éa71| ‘of which class are ;? not quite so 
much as ‘quippe que,’ De Wette, * que 
quidem,’ Schott.,— but merely ‘such 
for instance as,’ Sores having appy. here 
its classifying force; see notes on ch. iv. 
24. topvelal ‘fornication.’ 
Observe the prominence always given to 
condemnations of this deadly sin, it be- 
ing one of the things which the old 
pagan world deemed as merely &didpopa ; 
see Meyer on Acts xv. 20. The 
insertion of porxela [ Rec. with DE (FG 
ea) JK; Clarom., Goth., Syr.-Phil. ; 
Gr. and Lat. Ff.] and the change to 


plurals [FG; Orig., al.] are rightly re- 
jected by the best recent editors with 
ABC; 3 mss., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Aith. 
(both); Clem., Mare. in Epiph.; Cyr., 
al, axastapola, &acérAvyetal 
‘uncleanness, wantonness ;’ comp. Rom. 
xiii. 18, 2 Cor. xii. 21 (where the same 
three words are in connection), Eph. iv. 
19. The distinction between these words 
is thus drawn by Tittmann, Synonym. 
p. 151,— axa. (more generic) ‘ queli- 
bet vite animique impuritas;’ acéAy., 
‘protervitas et petulantia 
hominis aceAyods (qui nullam verecun- 
diz pudorisque rationem habet), — non 
obsccenitas aut foeditas lubidinis ;’ comp. 
Etym. Mag. aoéryei €Etoimdtns mpds 
macav 7Sornv, and Trench, Synon. § xvi. 
where this latter word is defined as 
‘petulance or wanton insolence,” and as 
somewhat stronger than ‘ protervitas,’ 
and more nearly approaching ‘ petulan- 
tia.” The derivation is very doubtful ; 
it does not seem from SéA-ye (Trench), 
but perhaps from do. (satiety) and éay. 
connected with dary. (Benfey, Wurzellex. 
Vol. 1. p. 15), or more probably (Don- 
alds.) from @ priv. and gaday-[carayéw, 
aédas|, the primary idea being ‘ dirti- 
ness,’ ‘ foulness,’ ; Winer observes 
that the vices here enumerated may be 
grouped into four classes,—(1) sen- 
suality ; (2) ¢dolatry, not merely spir- 
itual, but actual, — amalgamation of 
Christianity and heathenism (1 Cor. 
viii. 7); comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 243 note (Bohn); (3) matice; (4) 
excesses. Beng. similarly divides them as 
‘peccata commissa cum proximo, adver- 
sus Deum, adversus proximum, et circa se 
ipsum, cui ordini respondet enumeratio 
fructus Spiritus.’ There does not, how- 
ever, appear any studied precision in the 
classification; St. Paul, as Aquinas re- 


impudens 





Cuap. V. 20. 


GALATIANS. 123 


0 


” eidwroraTpeia, pappaxeia, éySpat, Epis, Sros, Supor, épiSetar, 


marks, ‘non intendit enumerare omnia 
vitia ordinate et secundum artem, sed 
illa tantum in quibus abundant, et in 
quibus excedunt illi ad quos scribit.’ 


20.¢apuaxela] ‘sorcery,’ |2cudj-an 
.) 

[magia] Syr. This word, like the Lat. 
‘yeneficium’ (Vulg., Clarom.), may 
either imply (a) poisoning, as A&th., 
perhaps Goth., ‘lubjaleisei’ [compare 
Angl.-Sax. iib.], al., or (8) sorcery, as 
Syr. (both), Copt. (appy.), Arm., al. 
The former is not improbable on account 
of its juxtaposition to ZySpa: (see exx. in 
Schleusn. Lex. in LXX. s. v., Exod. vii. 
11, al.) ; the latter, however, seems here 
more probable, sorcery, as Meyer notices, 
‘being especially prevalent in Asia; see 
Acts xix. 19. On the subject generally, 
see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. tv. 17, p. 
262, sq. Both in this and the fol- 
lowing words there is much variation 
between the sing. and plural forms. 
Rec. commences the list of plurals with 
2xSpac; the singulars %es [ABD!; mss.] 
and (jAos [A ? BDIE (FG ¢ijaAous) ; 17. 
Goth.] seem, however, to have the crit- 
ical preponderance and are adopted by 
Lachm. Tisch., and most. modern ed- 
itors. Supoit) ‘displays of 
wrath ;’ both this and the associated 
plurals serving to denote the various 
concrete forms of the abstract sins here 
specified; see exx. of Suuol noticed by 
Lobeck, Ajax, 716, Bernhardy, Syné. 11. 
6, p. 62, and esp. the good note of Hein- 
ichen on Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vu. 6, Vol. 
m1. p. 18 sq. The meaning of Suuds, 
as its derivation implies [3iw, perhaps 
connected with Sanscr. dhu, ‘ agitare,’ 
Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 211], is 
not so much ‘inimicttia hominis acerbi 
et iracundi’ (Tittm. Synon. p. 133), as 
iracundia, or rather excandescentia, the 
principal idea being that of ‘ eager mo- 
tion towards,’ ‘impulse ;’ see esp. Don- 


alds. Crat. § 473, — where, however, the 
derivation of vw is plausibly referred to 
@E-, on the principle of ‘suggestion by 
contrast.’ It thus differs from dpyh, 
both in its tse, as more sudden (Luke 
iv. 28, Acts xix. 28), and its nature, as 
less lasting (compare Ecclus. xlviii. 10, 
komdcat dpyhv mpd avuod) ; see ‘Trench, 
Synon. § xxxvut., Fritz, Rom. Vol. 1. p. 
105, and notes on Eph, iv. 31. 

€pidetac] ‘caballings ;’ compare Syr. 


jis [rebellio, calumnia]. The ac- 


curate meaning of the word épideia 
appears to have been missed by most of 
the older, and indeed most of the mod- 
ern expositors, by whom it is commonly 
connected with %p1s (eompare CEcum.), 
and understood to mean ‘contention ;’ 
comp. ‘rixa,’ Vulg. ‘inritationes,’ Cla- 
rom. Its true etymological connection, 
is, however, with the Homeric word 
Zpi30s, ‘a day-laborer,’ and thence 
either with épiov (rhv épyatouevny Ta 
Zpia, Phavor. Eclog. p. 201, ed. Dind.), 
or more probably with”EPQ, %pdw, épéSw ; 
compare Lobeck, Patholog. p. 365. Its 
meaning, then, is (a) Labor for hire; 
compare Suidas, s. v. SexdeoSar; (8) 
Scheming or intriguing for office, ‘am- 
bitus :’ compare Aristot. Pod. v. 2. 3, p. 
1302, (ed. Bekk.); (y) Party-spirit, a 
contentious spirit of faction; compare 
Schol. ap. Matth. épid. eugsAdverror 
mpdters, and Steph. Thes. s: v. where 
there are also traces of a right percep- 
tion of the true meaning. Of these 
(y) seems to be the prevailing meaning 
in the N. T., where épid. occurs no less 
than 7 times, and in the following com- 
binations; in Rom. ii. 8, of é& épid. are 
coupled with of dmeWotvtes TH aAndeia, 
and in antithesis to of kad’ brouovhy &p- 
you &yasod; in 2 Cor. xii. 20, épidetac 
are enumerated between Svuo) and rata- 
AaAfas; in Phil, i. 16, ép.s. is in antithesis 


154 GALATIANS: Cuap. V. 21. 


PS) £. eS 921 36 / LQ, nw \ \, w 

tyootaciat, aipécets, PSdvo1, Hovor, wéSal, KOpot, Kal TA Guora 

TOUTOLS’ & TpOoAeyw vuiv, KaY@S Kal TPOELTOV, OTL OL TA TOLAUTA 
PLY, . 


21. gdva] Omitted by Tisch. with B; 17. 33. 35. 57. 73; Demid. Aug.* ; 
Clem., Marcion ap Epiph., Iren.; Cypr., Hieron. (distinctly), Ambrst., Aug. 
([Lachm.|, approved by MilZ). The authorities for the text are ACDEFGJK; 
great majority of mss.; Clarom., Boern., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., al.; Chrys., 
Theod., al. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Mey., Alf., Bagge). These so decidedly prepon- 
derate, the characteristic paronomasia is so probable, and the omission in transcrip- 
tion, owing to the similarity in words, so very likely, that we do not hesitate to 


restore pédvot. 


to dydrn; ib. ii. 3, it is connected with 
kevodotia, and in James iii. 14. 16, with 
Gjdos. In Ignat. Phuad. 8, tps. is 
opposed to xpicrouddea. It would thus 
seem that in all these passages, with the 
exception perhaps of Rom. 7. ¢., and 
Phil. 7. ¢.,— where the context points 
less to party-spirit: than to the conten- 
tiousness it gives rise to (see notes on 
Phil, i. 17, Transit.) —the meaning of 
épia. is fairly covered by the definition 
of Fritz. as ‘summa invidia pectore in- 
clusa proclivitasque ad machinationes ;’ 
see Riickert on Rom, ii. 8, and esp. 
Fritz. Excursus on épidos, épidela, épi- 
Sevouat, Comm. on Rom, Vol. 1. p. 143 
sq. 

‘ divisions, 


Sixootactat, aipécers| 

parties; the ‘standing 
apart’ (comp. ‘ tvisstasseis,” Goth.) and 
divisions (Rom. xvi. 17) implied in the 
former word, leading naturally to the 
more determinate choice (‘electio pree- 
sertim discipline cujusdam’ Schott) 
exercised in the formation of the latter; 
comp. Theoph. and Bagge én Joc. 

21. wésan, 
revellings,’ 


k@pmorl * drunkenness, 
‘ebrietates, comessationes,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.; the latter being the 
more generic and inclusive, to which 
the former was the usual accompani- 
ment. On the nocturnal xauo (7d 
aceryn Kal mopyikda touata, ocuprdoia, 
Hesych.) of the ancients see Schwarz. 
de Comiss. Vet., Altdorf, 1744, Welcker 
in Jacobs, Philostr. 1. 2, p. 202 sq. 
and on the derivation of the word 


[appy. connected with komdw, and 
from a root «-] Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 
1. p. 150. & mporAéyow bpiv] 
‘about which I tell you beforehand ;’ 
either ‘ preemoneo, priusquam veniat dies 
retributionis, sive judicii, quem hic res- 
picit,’ Est., or more simply, ‘ predico, 
ante eventum,’ Beng.; comp. 1 Thess, 
iii. 4. It is not necessary to refer & to 
mpdogovtes, a8 an accus. derived by at- 
traction from the accus. odjecti after that 
word (Schott, Olsh.); the ordinary ex- 
planation, ‘quod attinet ad ea que,’ 
(Camerar.), being perfectly satisfactory. 
In such cases, the relative is really gov- 
erned by the finite verb as a species of 
‘quantitative’ accus. ; its prominence in 
the sentence, and appy. absolute use 
being designed to call attention to that 
on which the thought or action princi- 
pally turns; comp. John. viii. 54, and 
see Scheuerl. Synt. § 8.4, p. 55. Such 
sentences often involve a slight, but 
perfectly intelligible, anacoluthon ; see 
Fritz. Rom. vi. 10, Vol. 1. p. 393, and 
compare notes on ch. ii. 20. 

kasas kat wpoetror] ‘as I also 
told you beforehand,’ sc. when I was 
with you ; the xa appy. reminding them 
that these were warnings not new to 
them. ‘The particle is omitted in BFG ; 
Amit., Demid.; Chrys. (1), al, and 
bracketed by Lachm., but rightly re- 
tained as part of the text by most recent 
editors, the external evidence in its fa- 
vor [ACDEJK; nearly all mss., and 


Cuap. V. 22. 


GALATIANS. 


135 


mpaccorvtes Bactrciay Ocod ob KANpovouncovow. ™ 6 dé KapTrds 
tod IIvetpatos éotw ayarn, xapa, eipivn, waKxpoSupla, ypnato- 


most Vv.; Clem., Chrys., Theod.] being 
so greatly preponderant. Te 
Totavta] ‘such things as these,’ ‘ all 
such things.’ The article with rowodros 
denotes a known person or thing, or the 
whole class of such, but not an unde- 
fined individual out of the class; as in 
that case rowdros is anarthrous; see 
Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. 1. 5. 2, and 
Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 4. 6. 

Baugir. Oc0d od KAnpoy.]| ‘shall 
not inherit the kingdom of God ;’ comp. 
Eph. v. 5, where with equal pertinence 
the declaration is made of present time. 
On the meaning of the inclusive term 
Baotrciay Ocod, — that kingdom which 
was completely established at the ascen- 
sion (see Jackson, Creed, x. 45. 2), of 
which Christ is the founder, and Christ 
(and God, Rev. xi. 15, xii. 10) the 
King, and of which the true Christian, 


even while here on earth, is a subject, | 


see esp. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 72 sq., 
Bauer, Comment. Theol. 11. p. 107 sq., 
Heemskerk, Notio ris Bao. Kk. 7. A. 
(Amst. 1839), and the comments of 
Reuss, Théol. Chret. u. 4, Vol. 1. p. 
180 sq. On its distinction (whether 
‘in sensu énitiali or finali’) from the 
more collective and, so to say, localized 
éxkAnoia, see Stier, Ephes., Vol. 1. p. 
252 sq. 

22. kapmwds| ‘fruit;’? used appy. 
with a significant reference to the or- 
ganic development from their root, the 
Spirit (Olsh., Bloomf.) ; dia ri 5 Kapmdv 
Kade? Tod Ty. ; Ort Ta wey wovnpa Epya ef 
Tua yiyverat pdvoys 8d Kal epya Kader 
7a 5€ Kaka ov THs Huerépas emmedelas 
Setra: pdvov, GAAG Kal Tis TOU Beov pi- 
AavSpwrias, Chrys. It is possible that 
no marked distinction may be intended 
(Mey.), still, as xapmds is nearly always 
used by St. Paul ‘in bonum partem’ 


(Rom. i. 13, vi. 22, xv. 28, Eph. v. 9, 
Phil. i. 11, 22, iv. 17), and as even in 
Rom. vi. 21, where it is used in ref. to 
evil works, the same meaning (‘ what 
fruit,’ ¢. e. ‘ what really beneficial result 
had ye,’ etc.) appears to be preserved, 
we may safely press the peculiar mean- 
ing and significance of the term; see an 
excellent sermon on this text by San- 
derson, Serm. xvi. (ad Aul.), p. 594 
sq. (Lond. 1689). ayad@rn, 
x apd] ‘love, joy ;’ a&ydrn, as Mey. ob- 
serves, standing at the head, as the mov- 
ing principle of all the rest (compare 
1 Cor. xiii. 1 sq.), and yxap& following, 
as that special gift of the Spirit (comp. 
1 Thess. i. 6), which ought to be the 
pervading principle of Christian life 
(Phil. iv. 4); comp. Reuss. Théol. Chrét. 
Iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202. eiphyn| 
‘peace ;? not so much here in ref. to 
peace with God (Phil. iv. 7, see notes i 
loc.) as, in accordance with the associated 
and partially contrasted terms &ySpat 
k. T. A. (ver. 20),— peace with one 
another; compare 1 Thess. v. 15. On 
the meaning of paxpodupla (clementia, 
qua ire temperans delictum non statim 
vindices,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p 98), see 
notes on Eph. iv. 2, and for its distinc- 
tion from sropovh, notes on Col. i. 11. 

xpnotdtns, &yadwaodbryn| ‘benev- 
olence, goodness.’ These words are 
nearly synonymous. The former (de- 
fined in [Plato] Def. 412 2, as jjSous an- 
Aaoria per’ evAoyiotias) may perhaps 
denote that benevolence and sweetness 
of disposition (‘benignity,’ Wicl., 
Rhem.) which finds its sphere and 
exercise in our intercourse with one 
another; comp. Tit. iii. 4, where it is 
joined with g:AavSpwria, and see Tittm. 
Synon. p. 140, Planck, Comment. Theol. 
Part 1. p. 197, and the citation from 


136 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 23. 


> 7 U oh lal 
TNS, ayaswovn, Ticats, ™ mpaiirns, éyxpdtea KaTa TOV ToLOv- 


Jerome in Trench, Synon. Append. p. 
198 (ed. 1). The latter (ayad.), 
a somewhat rare word (though occur- 
ring in three other places in St. Paul’s 
Epp. Rom. xv. 14, Eph. v. 9, 2 Thess. 
i. 11), seems more than % drnpticuevn 
&perh (Phavorinus, Zonaras) or even, 
‘animi ad optima queeque propensio’ 
(Gom. on Rom. xv. 14), and may not 
improbably be extended to that ‘ pro- 
pensio’ as exhibited in action, the pro- 
pension both to will and do what is 
good ; see Stier, Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 265, 
and compare Suicer, hes. Vol. 1. p. 16, 
The idea of ‘bountifulness,’ Nehem. 
ix. 25, is necessarily included. It may 
thus be distinguished from the some- 
what late word dyaderns (Lob. Phryn. 
p- 350), which rather denotes ‘ goodness 
in its essence,’ and is thus commonly 
used in reference to God. 
tis| ‘faith; not merely ‘ fidelitas, 
veracitas in promissis’ (Men. ap. Pol. 
Syn.), 7. e., ‘good faith’ (Matth. xxiii. 
23; Tit. ii. 10, ricris &yadh), but trust- 
fulness (Conyb.), faith in God's promises 
and mercies and loving trust towards 
men; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 7, mdvra mo- 


mwic- 


Tevet, Where, like uwaxpoSuula and xpne- 
Totns (ver. 4), it stands as one of the 
characteristics of &yd7n. 

23. tpaittns| ‘meckness,’ ‘modes- 
tia, Vulg. The zpais is defined by 
Tittmann, Synon. p. 140, as ‘mansue- 
tus, qui quo animo omnia fert (sanft- 
miithig ),’ compare Aristot. Eth. tv. 11. 
This, however, seems wholly insufficient ; 
the Christian grace of mpaiirns is not 
mere gentleness or arapatia, (7d dvexivn- 
Tov civas mpds tas dpyds, Stob. Florii. 1. 
18), but appy. denotes a submissiyeness 
to God as well as man, and may be 
distinguished from émefxe as having 
its seat in the inner spirit, while the 


latter seeks to embody itself in acts; 
see T'rench, Synon. § xii. 16, and notes 
on Col, iii. 12. On the orthography 
mpadtns (appy. the more Attic form, 
Phot. Lex. p. 386) or mpaiirns, compare 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 403. éyKpa- 
Teta} the exercise of 
control over passions and desires; com- 
pare Acts xxiv. 25, 2 Pet. i. 65 éyxp. d€ 
éotiv Gpeth Tod éemiduuntixod Kay Hy 
karéxovot TG Aoyioug@ Tas éemiSuulas dp- 
pooas ém) tas gatAas jdovds, Stob. 
Fioril, 1. 18. It is distinguished by 
Diog. Laert. from cwppoctyn as implying 
a control over the stronger passions, 
whereas the latter implies a self-restraint 
in what is less vehement; % cwdpocivn 
hpemalas @xer Tas emduutas, 7 5¢ eyKpd- 
Tew opodpds, Suid. Lex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
1138 (ed. Gaisf.). The addition of 
ayvela (DIEFG); Clarom. Vulg. [not 
Amit.; Bas., al.] is rightly rejected by 
appy- all recent editors. 
toLovuTwrv) ‘all such things ;’ not mase. 
(Theod.), but as seems much more nat- 
ural, and is perhaps suggested by the 
art. (Olsh.) meut. in reference to the pre- 
ceding virtues; compare the somewhat 
parallel passage, Stobeeus, Florid. 18, fin., 
&kodoudsel 5¢ tH apeTH xpnotdrns, émet- 


‘ temperance,’ 


TOY 


Kel, evyvwnoovyn, Ams Gyadh, ert SE 
kal Ta TowadTa. Brown’s argument (p. 
307) is certainly not convincing, ‘ro- 
ovTwy and toavTwy,)—a curious over- 
sight. ovn €oTt védpos} 
‘ there is no (condemnatory) Jaw.’ The 
explanation per meiosin, ‘tantum abest 
ut iis legis Mosaicz terrores sint metu- 
endi, ut potius Deo sint grati,’ Rosenm. 
(cited by Brown), is not satisfactory. 
St. Paul draws a contrast between the 
legal judgment under which the former 
class lay, and the freedom from it which 
those who are led by the Spirit enjoy ; 


Cuap. V. 24, 25. GALATIANS. 


137 


> ” , 24 e \ Lal nw \ / > 7 
Tov ovK éotw vopos. ™ ot é TOU Xpiotod THY capKa EoTAavpwoar 
\ a / \ a >. / 25 > lal , 
avy Tois Tadjnpacw Kal Tats ériSvpias. ~ ev Gopev IIvevpari, 


24. rod Xpicrod] Tisch. adds "Incod with ABC; mss.; Copt., Sahid., Aéth. 
(both) ; Cyr. (often), Doroth., Bas., Procop., Dam., al.; Aug. [Lachm.]. The 
external authorities for the omission are DEFGJK (FG add evtes, scil. ovtes) ; 
Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Goth., Arm.; Chrys., Theodoret, Pseud-Ath., al. ; 
very many Lat. Ff. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Alf.). Owing to the importance of 
ABC, the external evidence may perhaps be considered slightly in favor of the 
addition; the order, however, is so unusual (Eph. iii. 1, Col. ii. 6, but in both 
with var, readings), and external evidence for and against so nearly balanced, that 


we decide in favor of the shorter reading. 


compare Bull, Exam. Censure, xvu. 16, 
where, however, the masc. interpr. of 
To.vtwy is adopted, 

24. of 5€] ‘Now they;’ slightly con- 
trasted application of the whole foregoing 
particulars to the special case of Chris- 
tians, 5¢ not being simply continuative 
(Auth.), nor yet resumptive, in ref. to 
ver. 16 (De W.), or to ver. 18 (Beng.), 
but almost syllogistic, the application to 
Christians forming a sort of practical 
‘ propositio minor’ to the foregoing group 
of verses. The connection of the whole 
paragraph, then, from ver. 16 appears to 
be as follows: —‘The Spirit and the 
flesh are contrary to each other; if the 
flesh prevail, man is given over to all sin, 
and excluded from the kingdom of God: 
if the Spirit be the leading principle, 
man brings forth good fruits, and is free 
from the curse of the law. Now the 
distinguishing feature of the true Chris- 
tian is the crucifixion of the flesh; con- 
sequently, as must be obvious from what 
has been said, the living in and being 
led by the Spirit ;’ see Riickert in Joc. 
éctavpwaoar| ‘crucified,’ scil. when 
they became Christians, and by bap- 
tism were united with Christ in His 
death; compare Rom. vi. 3. Though 
this ethical crucifixion is here designated 
as an act past (compare Rom. vi. 6, 6 
maraios judy kvspwros cuvectavpwsn), 
it really is and must be a continuing act 
as well; compare Rom. viii. 13. This 

18 


however the aor., with its usual and 
proper force, leaves unnoticed ; it simply 
specifies, in the form of a general truth, 
the act as belonging to the past, without 
affirming or denying any reference to 
the present ; see Fritz, de Aor. Vi, p. 17, 
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, and compare 
Soph. Antig. 1318 (last line) édiSatav, 
on which Wex remarks, ‘unum exem- 
plum, quod aliquando evenerit, tanquam 
norma proponitur :’ see also Schmalfeld, 
Synt. § 60. 2, p. 128. In all such cases 
the regular reference of the tense to the 
past may be felt in the kind of summary 
way in which the action is stated, — the 
sort of implied dismissal of the subject, 
and procedure to something fresh ; com- 
pare Donalds. Gr. § 433. On the 
vital truth, that our crucifixion of the 
flesh is included and involved in that of 
Him with whom we are united, comp. 
Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 202 sq.; and 
on the whole verse read the good sermon 
of South, Serm. xx1u. Vol. tv. p. 338 
sq. (Lond. 1843). 

25. €i CGmev Mvetpari] ‘If we 
live by the Spirit ;’ —*‘ if, as a matter of 
fact (see notes on ch. i. 9), we dive (em- 
phatic) by the efficacy and operation of 
the Spirit ; assumption naturally arising 
from the preceding declaration of cruci- 
fixion of the opposing principle, the 
flesh ; ‘enecaté in hominibus Christianis 
7h capki, necesse est in iisdem vivat 
suamque vim libere exserat rb Tlvedua,’ 


138 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. V. 26. 


IIvevpati Kat orovydpev. ™ uh ywwopweSa Kevodofor, add2jdous 
TPOKANOVPEVOL, GAAHAOLS PYovoovTes. 


Schott. The omission here of all illa- 
tive particles makes the exhortation more 
forcible and emphatic; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 
17. There is some little difficulty 
in the explanation of the dative Mvev- 
pati. It is certainly not (a) a dative of 
manner, scil. ‘spiritually’ Middl.; as 
thus not only the force of the verse, but 
the connection with what precedes, aris- 
ing from the opposition of the Mvedua 
and the odpé, is completely lost. Nor 
again (b) is it a dative of relation, —‘ si 
vitam nostram ad Spiritum referimus, 
ad Spiritum etiam dirigamus vitam,’ 
Fritz. (Rom, xiii. 13, Vol. ut, p. 142) ; 
for though Rom. xiv. 6—8- supplies a 
somewhat parallel sentiment, the an- 
tithesis between the two clauses is thus 
obviously deprived of all force and per- 
tinence. On the whole, then, the or- 
dinary explanation (c) would seem to be 
most satisfactory, according to which 
TIvevuars is to be regarded as a form of 
the instrumental or ablatival dative 
(Winer, Gr. § 31. 7, p. 194), and as 
here adopted rather than d:a with the 
accus. (John vi. 57, compare Winer p. 
356), as thus forming a sharper antithe- 
sis to the dative which follows, — ‘if 
we live by the Spirit (if the Spirit is our 
principle of life) by the Spirit let us also 
walk ;’ compare 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7d 5¢ Mvedua 
(woroie, and see Neand. Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 469 sq. (Bohn). The second 
Tiveduate is obviously the dat. norme, 
scil. kata Tovs éxeivov vduous moAtTeudue- 
vot, Chrys., see notes on ver. 16. Fritz 
(Rom. iv. 22, Vol. 1. p. 225) explains it 
as a dat. commodi, ‘ Spiritui vitam con- 
secrate ;’ but this, on Rom. xiii. 13, he 
appears to have retracted. oT Ol 
xG@pmev| ‘let us walk. The hortatory 
imperative is not without some doctrinal 
significance (Ust.); the Apostle evi- 


dently assuming the union and coéxist- 
ence of the Divine and human powers 
in the heart of the true Christian; com- 
pare Beck, Seedeni. 1. 8, p. 29, 11. 13, p. 
32 sq., Usteri, Lehrd. uu. 1. 3, p. 218 
note. The command is substantially the 
same as that in ver. 16, except perhaps 
that oroxeiv [ortx-] may imply a more 
studied tollowing of a prescribed course, 
than the more general repitaréw (notes 
on Phil. iii. 18); compare Polyb. Hist. 
XXVIII. 5. 6, orotxety TH THs TUyKANTOV 
mposéoe, Dion. Hal. Antig. vi. 65, 
oToxeiv Tals wAcioot yvduors, and the 
somewhat unusual expression oroxeiv 
pug yuvaurl, Schol. Arist. Plut. 773. 

26. uh yivdmeda x. 7. A.] ‘Let us 
not become ;’ not *let us not be,’ Auth, 
(comp. Syr.), but ‘ne efficiamur’ Vulg., 
Clarom., ‘ vairbamma,’ Goth., there be- 
ing appy. no less in the verb than in the 
person an intentional mildness, which 
seems to imply that the sin of xevodotia 
had not yet taken root, though the very 
warning suggests that it was to be ex- 
pected. The verse thus forms a suitably 
concluding warning against those par- 
ticular sins of the Galatians to which 
the Apostle alluded in ver. 13—15 and 
at the close of ver. 20, and belongs to 
Chap. v., though it also serves very 
naturally to connect the doctrinal with 
the more directly admonitory portion of 
the Epistle, which begins with the next 
chapter. A close connection with Ch. 
vi. (Mey., al.) seems clearly at variance 
with the introductory a&deAgpoi (compare 
ch. iv. 12), and the change of person. 
GAANHA. TpoKkarotvmervor| ‘provok- 
ing each other ;’ scil. eis ptAovekias Kar 
pers, Chrys. ‘calling one another out to 
the field of controversy,’ Brown; see 
Herodian, Hist. v1. 9 (Oxon., 1704), 
mpokadeiTar Huas eis waxny, and simply, 


Cuap. VI. 1. 


Ye who are. spiritual 
should bear and forbear; 
examine yourselves be- 
fore ye judge others. 


Polyb. Hist. 1. 46. 11, mpoxadrotuevos 
Tovs ToAeulous. The meaning of 
pSovovrvtres has been modified by 
some commentators, ‘withholding out 
of envy’ (Olsh.), ‘hating’ (Brown). 
This is not necessary; @aoveiv is the 
correlative act on the part of the weak, 
to the mpoxadcioSa: on the part of 
the strong. ‘The strong, vauntingly 
challenged their weaker brethren: the 
weak could only retaliate with envy. 
It may be remarked that pSovety does 
not occur elsewhere in N. T.; in James 
iv. 2, the correct reading is govevere. 


Cuapter VI. 1. &5eA gol] ‘Breth- 
ren ;’ conciliatory mode of address in- 
troducing the more directly admonitory 
portion ; ‘latet in hoc etiam uno verbo 
argumentum,’ Beza. éav rar 
TporAnupan| ‘if aman be even sur- 
prised or caught ;? preoccupatus fuerit,’ 
Vulg., Clarom., Syr., ‘ gafauhaidan,’ 
Goth. The verb rpoanupdy has received 
several different interpretations, in ac- 
cordance with the different meanings 
assigned to mpé. The more strict tem- 
poral meaning, ‘ antea,’ whether referred 
to the arrival of the Epistle (Grot.), to 
a recurrence of the offence (Winer), or 
to the attempt at restoration, — the 
AapBdveoSa taking place before the 
katapt. (Olsh.),— is unsatisfactory, as 
the emphatic position of mpoAnupdy and 
the force of xai are thus both obscured. 
The common reference to the unexpected- 
ness of the sin (‘notat improvisam oc- 
cupationem,’ Vorst., édv cuvaprayh, 
Chrys.), is also inconsistent with kal, 
as this meaning of mpd would tend to 
excuse and qualify, whereas xal seems 
to point out an aggravation of the of- 
fence. If, however, mpd be referred to 
the power of escape, — ‘be caught before 


GALATIANS. 


139 


VI. ’Adergoi, eav Kat tporeugdh dvSpo- 
TOS &V TW TapaTT@patt, vets. ob MmvevpatiKol 


he could escape,’ ‘ flagrante delicto,’ — 
not only the intensive force of kai, but 
the emphatic position of zpoAnupds7y and 
the general tenor of the exhortation is 
fully preserved. This meaning of zpo- 
AauB., it must be admitted, is rare, but 
see exx, in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 289, 
and esp. Wisdom, xvii. 17, rpoAngSels, 
Thy SvgdAUKTOV EuEvey dvdyKny. 

On the Alexandrian form mpodnupdi, 
see Winer, Gr. § 5, 4, Tisch. Prolegom. 
p. xx., and on the difference between 
éay xa and kal édy, see note, ch. i. 8, 
Herm. Viger, No. 307, Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 1. p. 519. 
pantdépmarte| 
in any particular act of sin, esp. on the 
side of error, stumbling, or transgression 
of a command. On the distinction 
between tapdrrwua (more particular), 
and guapria (more general), see notes on 
Eph. ii. 1. 
patikol] ‘ye the spiritual ones,’ ‘ye 
that are spiritual.’ The tenor of the 
exhortation, coupled with the similar 
distinctions which St. Paul seems else- 
where to have recognized in his converts 
(e. g., 1 Cor. iii. 1), appears in favor of 
the opinion that the Apostle is here 
designating not merely those who were 
subjectively mvevuarixol, 7. e., who thought 
themselves so (comp. Windischm.), but 
those who were objectively mvevyar., those 
who had remained true to him and his 
doctrines; see Olsh. in loc. That the 
teachers are mainly addressed in ver. 
1—6, and the hearers and laity in ver. 
6—10, is also probable. KaT ap 
ti¢ere| ‘restore.’ The technical mean- 
ing amd trav ekapSpnudtwy ‘reponere in 
artu luxata membra,’ Steph. (Thes. 
Vol. iv. p. 1213), adopted by Beza, 
Blooomf., Brown, al., does not appear 
here alluded to, as examples of the sim- 


év tivl wae 
‘in any transgression,’ 


¢ “~ id 
bmets ol TWveEu- 


140 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 1, 2. 


a Ud of A 
Kataptitere Tov ToLodTOY ev TrvEevpaTL TpaiTHTOS, TKOT@V TEavTOV 


\ \ \ : rn 2 
fi) Kal ov TréipacSjs. 


aAAjrAwY TA Bapn BactateTe, Kal odTws 


2. dvamwdnpdoete] Tisch. (ed. 2) reads dvamAnpdéoate with ACDEJK; appy. 
nearly all mss.; Syr.-Philox., perhaps Goth. [but conjunct. acts both for fut. and 
imper.; De Gabel. Gr. § 182, 186]; Clem., Ath., Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al. 
(Ree., Griesb., Scholz). The authorities for text are BFG; 2 mss.; Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Syr., Arm., Copt., Sahid., Aith. (both); Theodoret (mss.) Aster. Procl., 


ple ethical sense (d:opS0i7e. Chrys.) are 
sufficiently common ; comp. Herodot. v. 
28, xataptiCev (MiAnrov,) Stob. Flori. 
1.85, xatapt. pladous diapepouevous, Greg. 
Nazianz. Orat. xxvi. Vol. 1. p. 443 B, 
aésev odv Uptoun KaraptiCew tuas adedr- 
gol (cited by Dindorf). 
fats mwpattnros| ‘the spirit of 
meekness ;’ not merely ‘a meek spirit,’ 
— a wholly inadmissible dilution of the 
true meaning of the words,— but a 
spirit of which the principal constituent 
(comp. Bernhardy, Syné. 111. 44, p. 161) 
or characterizing quality (Scheurl. Synt. 
§ 16. 3, p. 115) is mpairns, compare 
Winer, Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 212. The an- 
arthrous mvedua (but after a prep.) refers 
ultimately, as Chrysostom felt, to the 
Holy Spirit, one of whose especial char- 
This 
reference, however, must not be over- 
stated, or expressed by the use of a cap- 
ital letter; for, as in 1 Cor. iv. 21 
(where mv. mpairntos is joined with 
dydn), so here mv. seems immediately 
to refer to the state of the inward spirit 
as wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, 
and witimately to the Holy Spirit as the 
inworking power; compare Rom. i. 4, 
my. ayiwovvns, Vill. 15, mv. viodecias, 
2 Cor. iv. 13, mv. tis miotews, Eph. i. 
17, mv. copias, in all which cases my. 
seems to indicate the Holy Spirit, and 
the abstract gen. the specific xdpioua ; 
see Hamm. zn Joc., and notes on 2 Tim. 
i.7. 
ing to thyself ;’ temporal clause stating 
the (proper) concomitants of the action 


Tvev- 


isms is ‘ gentleness ;’ see ch. v. 23. 


oKkow@yv ceavtdr| ‘look- 


(‘considering all the time thy own 
case’), or perhaps with a secondary- 
causal force hinting at the reasons for 
it; see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 56. 12. 1, 
Schmalfeld, Syné. § 207, and compare 
Donalds, Gr. § 615. For instances of 
the emphatic and individualizing enal- 
lage of number, see Bernhardy, Synt. 
xu. 5, p. 421. Lachm. connects this 
clause with ver. 2, putting a full stop 
after mvedu. mpaitntos, and a comma 
after meipaodjs, but thereby obviously 
weakens the whole force and point of 
the address. The avevuarixol were re- 
minded of their own liability to fall into 
temptation: why? Surely not to urge 
them merely generally to bear one an- 
other’s burdens, but particularly to 
evince their Christian spirit, by restoring 
one who had fallen, only after all, as they 
themselves might. Mh KT. AL] 
‘lest thou also shouldst be tempted,’ scil. 
in a like case; subjunctive (‘ verentis,’ 
est ne quid nunc sit, simulque nes- 
cire se utrum sit necne significantis,’ 
Herm. Soph. Ajax, 272), and in the 
aor., in reference to an event still im- 
pending; see Winer, Gr. § 46. 2, p. 
447, and the copious list of exx. of this 
and similar constructions in Gayler, 
Part. Neg. p. 325. 

2. dAAhAwY Ta Bapn| ‘the bur- 
dens of ONE ANOTHER ;’ the GAA*A., as 
Meyer rightly observes, being emphatic, 
not however, with any oblique reference 
to the burden of the Law (Alf.), but 
simply in opposition to that selfish feel- 
ing which would leave each one to bear 


Cuap. VI. 2, 3. 


GALATIANS. 


141 


5) : , \ fa xX fa) = 3 \ PS a 5 / 
avaT A\npao ETE TOV VOMLOV TOV AA PLOTCV. €l Yap OOKEL TLS ElVat TL 


Mare. erem.; Tert., Cypr., al. 
by Mili, Prolegom., p. 123). 


(Lachm., 
The preponderance of MSS. evidence is thus plainly 


Tisch., ed 1, Meyer, De Wette, approved 


in favor of the imper.; still the testimony of the Vv. joined with the extreme 
probability of a change from the future to the imperfect (see Mili, J. c.) seems 
sufficient to authorize the rejection of a reading, which on strict grammatical 
principles may be pronounced somewhat suspicious. 


his own; contrast the Apostle’s own 
example, 2 Cor. xi. 29. The meaning 
of this expressive word must not be too 
much circumscribed. It seems chosen, 
with inclusive ref. to all forms of weak- 
nesses (aoSevhuara, Rom. xv. 1), suffer- 
ings, and, perhaps more especially, sins ; 
the purport of the command being ¢é- 
pety Ta TOY TAnCloy €AaTTouaTa, Chrys., 
or, with more exactness, émnouvpliCew Thy 
Wuxhv ind T]s TOD Guapthuatos cuvedh- 
gews BeBapnuévyny, Theod. Mops. p. 129. 
Baotdere] ‘bear,’ z. e. sustain as a 
superimposed burden. On the particular 
use and meaning of Baord¢ew in the 
important doctrinal statement, Matth. 
viii. 17, as exemplified by this pas- 
sage, see Magee, Atonement, No. xu. 
Vol. 1. 415 sq. 
avamwAnpdcerte] ‘and thus shall ye 
Fulfil, — thus, in this way, and no 
other, viz., by following the exhortation 
just given, Future after imperat., as 
in ch. v. 16. On the whole (see crit. 
note), the future seems the more proba- 
ble, as well as perhaps the more strictly 
grammatical reading; for though no 
opposing argument can be founded on 
the use of the imperfect aor. combined 
with the imperfect present (the former 
often stating the general command, the 
latter some of the details ; comp. Scho- 
mann, Jseus, p. 235), still in the case 
of this particular verb the use of the 
present (compare Barnab. Ep. ch. 21, 
dvamAnpoite macay évtoAhy), is much 
more natural. The compound dyvamAn- 
pooy is not simply synonymous with 
mAnpoiy (Riick., al.), but appears in all 


kal ottTws 


cases to denote a complete filling up, and 
to point to a partial rather than an en- 
tire vacuum ; ‘ hec demum erit perfecta 
legis impletio,” Winer, Verb. Comp. 
Fase. 11. p. 11; compare Plut. Poplic. 
§. 11, dverAhpwoe thy BovaAhy ddryavdpov- 
gay (‘made up the full number of’), 
and see notes on Phil. iii. 30. The ex- 
planation of Chrys., now mdvres mAn- 
pécare, is not satisfactory. Tov 
vémov tod Xp. ‘the law of Christ ;’ 
not generally ‘le mobile des actes du 
Chretien’ (Reuss, Théol. Chr. tv. 16, 
Vol. 1. p. 168), but definitely ‘the law 
of love’ (thy aydrnv gdnotv, Theod. 
Mops.), which he gave (John xiii. 34, 
évroAhv Kavhy idm spiv, va ayarare 
&AAfhAous; 1 John iii. 23, ayarauev ar- 
AfAous KaSas Zdwxev evToAjv juiy), and 
which He so graciously exemplified, 
avTds yap Tas Guaptias jua@y avédaBe rar 
tas vécous éBdotacev, Schol. ap. Matth, 
The peculiar term vduos is perhaps here 
chosen with some reference to the case 
of the Galatians: they affected an ob- 
servance of the law of Moses, here was 
a law of Christ in which was included 
the fulfilment of the whole law; comp. 
ch. v. 14. This ‘novum preceptum 
Christi’ is illustrated and explained by 
Knapp, Script, Var. Arg. No. x, p. 369 
sq. 

3. ef ydp «.7.A.] ‘For if any one 
thinks,’ etc.; confirmation of the fore- 
going exhortation to gentleness and 
humility, by showing the evils of the 
opposite course. The best motive to 
indulgence towards others is, as Olsh, 
remarks, the sense of our own weakness, 


142 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 8, 4. 


pndev ov, ppevarrata éavtov. 47d b& epyov éavtod Soxipatérw 


endéty &yv] ‘when he is nothing,’ *be- 
ing all the time nothing ;’ temporal, or 
in the more accurate language of Schmal- 
feld, ‘temporal-concessive’ participle, 
stating what the man after all is, in 
spite of his opinion of himself; see the 
exx. in Schmalfeld, Syné. § 207. 2, p. 
415. Alford finds in this use of the 
subjective undév rather than ovdéy (abso- 
lute) a fine irony, — ‘ being if he would 
come to himself, and look on the real 
fact.’ This, however, is somewhat pre- 
carious, as the use of the subjective ne- 
gation with participles is the prevailing 
usage in the N. T.; see Green, Gr. p. 
122. While, then, we may press od 
when so connected, we must be careful 
in overpressing wf; see notes on 1 Thess. 
ii, 15, iii. 1. 
of the general form of expression, see 
Wetst. in loc., and Kypke Obs. Vol. um. 
p- 291; one of the most apposite is, 
Plato, Apol. p. 41 8, é&v Soxdol te elvat, 
pndey byes, 


For illustrative exx. 


ppevatarta | ‘de- 
ceiveth his own mind,’ ‘inwardly de- 
ceiveth himself ;’ comp. Goth., ‘ frabja- 
marzeins ist,’ [intellectus deceptio est]. 
The verb is an Gag. Aey. in the N. T.; 
comp., however, @pevamrdrns, Tit. i. 10, 
and James i. 26, amaréy xapdiav adtod. 
This last passage may perhaps enable 
us to draw a distinction between draré 
éauTby and dpevamarg éavrdv. ‘The for- 
mer may imply a deception which had 
something objective to rest upon; the 
latter a more studied inward-working, 
and purely subjective deception ; comp. 
notes on Tit. i. 10. Hence the force of 
the command which follows, 7d %pyov 
Soxmalérw, put to the proof his owt- 
ward acts, and form his judgment upon 
them. The gloss of Hesych. (xAeuder), 
or even of Zonaras (d:amaiCer) does not, 
consequently, seem quite sufficient. 

The order éavrdy opevar. [Rec. with 


DEFGJK; al.] is well supported, but 
inferior in point of critical authority to 
that of the text (Lachm., Tisch., with 
ABC; 80, al.), and not improbably a 
correction to give éavrdy studied promi- 
nence. 

4. ro Epyov éEavtov Sori] 
‘prove his own work ;’ put to the test 
all that he is particularly engaged on; 
‘vem non opinionem de se,’ Beng. The 
singular with the article is appy. here 
used collectively (De W., Mey.), scil. 
Tas éEavtod mpdtes, Theophyl., 7a BeBiw-= 
uéva abrg@, CEcum.; ‘universam agendi 
rationem complectitur,’ Schott: comp. 
Rom. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17, and see Winer, 
Gr.§ 27.1, p. 157. On the meaning 
Of SoximdCew mer’ axpiBelas ekerdCev, 
Theoph.), see notes on Phil. i. 10, Suicer, 
Thesaur. 8, v. Vol. 1. p. 936, and for a 
good practical sermon on this and the 
preceding verse, see Usher, Serm. m1. 
Vol. x11. p. 31 sq. (ed. Elrington). 

Td Kavdxnua Kk. 7.A.] ‘his ground 
of boasting.’ The true meaning of this 
passage has been somewhat obscured by 
a neglect of the exact meaning and force 
of the different words. (1) The con- 
crete xatxnua, gloriandi materies (Rom. 
iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, 16, al.), must not 
be confounded with rabxnois, gloriatio 
(Rom. iii. 27, al.), the distinction be- 
tween these words being appy. always 
observed in the N. T., — even in 2 Cor. 
v. 12, ix. 3, al. (2) The article is not 
used kat’ étoxhv, but pronominally (Mid- 
dleton, ch. v. 3), ‘Aés ground of boast- 
ing,’ the xatxnua which properly belongs 
to him; compare 1 Cor. iv. 5, rére 6 
ératvos yevhoetat Exdotw. (3) The prep, 
eis must in each clause bear the same 
meaning (opp. to De Wette) ; the most 
simple and suitable appearing to be, 
‘with regard to,’ ‘in relation to,’ not 
‘contra,’ Schott (which can be justified, _ 


Cuap. VI. 4, 5. 


GALATIANS. 


: 143 


ig \ + > e \ 4+ \ 7 4 \ > > 

EKATTOS, KAL TOTE Els EaUTOV povoY TO Kavynua EEL, Kal OvK Eis 
\ ec 

Tov éTepov. ° éxactos yap TO idvov poptiov Bactace. 


e.g. Luke xii. 10, but connected with 
éavr. would involve an artificial expla- 
nation) ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 10, 7 cavxnors 
aitn ov oppayicerat eis éué, Eph. iii. 16, 
KpaTawdivat ....€is Tov ow kvSpwror ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354, Bernh. 
Synt. v. 11, p. 220. (4) The force of 
Tov €repov (not érepov, as implied by 
Auth.) must not be overlooked, scil. 
‘the one with whom he is contrasting 
himself ;’ ‘his neighbor,’ Copt., Arm. 
The meaning of the whole clause then 
will be, ‘If any one wishes to find mat- 
ter for boasting, let it be truly searched 
for in his own actions, and not derived 
from a contrast of his own fancied vir- 
tues with the faults of others ;’ compare 
Hammond in Joc. True Christian rav- 
xnua, like St. Paul’s, must be found 
either in a deep and thankful acknowl- 
edgment of blessings and successes (év 
Kupl@ xavxdodw, 2 Cor. x. 17), or in 
afflictions and weakness (2 Cor. xi. 30, 
xii. 5), which still more show forth both 
the mercy and the mighty power of the 
Lord; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. 

5. Exaotos yap] ‘For each man;’ 
confirmatory clause standing in close 
connection with the last words of ver. 
4, and assigning a reason why a man 
would have little real ground or justice 
for claiming spiritual superiority over his 
neighbor; he had only to look at him- 
self, to see that he had his own burden 
to bear; Kal od Kaxeivos Td Y510v popriov 
Baotdoere, CEcum. poptior] 
‘load ;’ not identical with the preceding 
Bdpos, ver. 2 (Vulg., Clarom., Arm., — 
but not any of the other Vv.), which 
perhaps is used as a more general term 
in reference to the community at large, 
while gopr. has a more individualizing 
reference to the particular /oad of sins 


and infirmities which each one, like a 
wayfarer (comp. Wisdom xxi. 6, Xenoph. 
Mem. 11. 13. 6), had to carry: ‘alia 
sunt onera participande infirmitatis, alia 
reddendz rationis Deo de actibus nos- 
tris: illa cum fratribus sustentanda com- 
municantur, hee propria ab unoquoque 
portantur,’ August. de Consens. Evang. 
1m. 30.72. The qualitative and hum- 
bling distinction of Chrys. (rots évéuacr 
Tov poptiov Kai Tis &xXopopias méCwv 
abtav 7d cvreidds), and the quantitative 
of Beng. (‘@opriov, par ferentis viribus ; 
Bdpn quee excedunt’) do not appear so 
natural or probable, The allusion 
which Conyb. here finds to Aisop’s well- 
known fable (the Mijpa: dbo? p. 165, ed. 
De Furia) is not very plausible, as the 
point of the fable and the tenor of this 
verse are far from being identical. 

Baotdoet| ‘shall bear,’ scil. ‘has to 
bear,’ ‘must bear.” The future does 
not here refer to the day of judgment 
(Theod., al.; see ch. v. 10), nor even 
(like €%ez) to the future period when the 
conviction is arrived at, ‘will find he 
has to bear’ (Windischm., al.), but is 
appy. used ethically, in ref. to what ac- 
cording to the nature of things must be 
the case; compare notes on Eph. v. 31, 
Thiersch, de Pent. 111. 11, p. 158, sq., 
and see exx.in Jelf, Gr. § 406. 3, and 
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377. It was 
not so much from a sense of future re- 
sponsibility, as from a consciousness of 
present unavoidable &xSopopla, that a 
man would be led to think humbly 
of himself and kindly of his neigh- 
bor. The observation of Fritzsche on 
the use of the future is worthy of 
citation; ‘Futurum in sententid gen- 
erali recte ponitur, quandoquidem rei 
que in nullum tempus non convenire 


144 


Be liberal to your teach- 
ers; as ye sow now, 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 6. 


® Kowwveitw 5é 6 Katnyovpevos Tov Adyov 


whether it be to the flesh or to the Spirit, so shall ye reap. 


videatur, etiam futuro tempore locum 
futurum esse jure sumitur,’ on Rom. vii. 
3, Vol. u. p. 9. 

6. eotvwveltw St x. 7.A.] ‘but 
let him that is instructed share with,’ 
etc. ; exhortation to the duty of sharing 
temporal blessings with others, placed 
in contrast (5¢) to the foregoing declara- 
tion of individual responsibility in spir- 
itual matters. With regard to the con- 
struction there is some little doubt 
whether xoiwwyvetv is here transitive (‘ sit 
benignus in magistrum in omni bono- 
rum genere’ Fritz. Rom. 1. c.; compare 
Chrys., wacay émibenvucdsw mepl adtody 
SaiAeav) or intransitive. The verb has 
three constructions in the N. T.; (a) 
with gen. of the thing; only Heb. ii. 
14; (d) with dat. of thing, the common 
construction, Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, 
1 Tim. v. 22, 1 Pet. iv. 18, 2 John 11; 
(c) dat. of person, the thing under the 
regimen of a prep., Phil. iv. 15. In all 
these instances (even in Rom, xii. 13) 
the meaning seems clearly intransitive. 
The same appears to be the meaning in 
the present case: for though the transi- 
tive constr. is lexically admissible (Thom. 
Mag. kowwva co dv exw, avti Tod peta- 
diSwur), and yields a perfectly good sense, 
still the prevailing use of kowwveiy in 
the N. T., the analogy of construction 
between this passage and Phil. iv. 15, 
ovdeula wot éxxAnoia éxowovncer eis Ad-yov 
ddcews Kad Ahuews, and the general con- 
text supply arguments in favor of the 
tntransitive meaning, which seem dis- 
tinctly to preponderate. 6 Ka- 
TnXovm. Thv Adyor] ‘he that is 
instructed in THE word,’ scil. in the Gos- 
pel (see Acts’xv. 7, roy Adyor Tod evay- 
yeAtov, and compare Luke i. 2), rdv 
Adyov being the accus. of reference, or 
what is termed the ‘ qualitative object’ 
(Hartung, Casus, p. 55, 61) after the 


pass. part. carnxovuevos (Acts xviii. 25) ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 104, and esp. 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 25, compared with 
§ 16, and fin. With regard to the mean- 
ing of kxarnxéw which has here been 
somewhat unduly pressed, we may ob- 
serve that the word appears to have four 
meanings; (a) sono; dy7 Tod Axw, Sui- 
das; (8) sono impleo; compare Lucian, 
Jup. Trag. 39, ckatadover Kal katynxover ; 
(y) vivd voce erudio, mpotpérouct kab 


mapave, Suid. ; compare Syr. teas 
40° 


[qui audit], Aith., and see Joseph. Vit. 
§ 69, where this meaning seems con- 
firmed by the context dAfSeay euap- 
tvper; and lastly (5), with a more general 
and unrestricted reference, edoceo (d:- 
ddonw, Hesych., Zonaras),— appy. the 
meaning in the present case (‘sa laisida,’ 


Goth., 125 2d Soo [qui instituit] Syr.- 
oe 4 A 


Phil.), and in the majority of the pas- 
sages in the N. T. (Luke i. 4, Acts 
xviii. 25, Rom. ii. 18,— perhaps even 
1 Cor, xiv. 20, Acts xxi. 21, 24), in 
which it occurs ; the idea of oral teaching 
being merged in that of general instruc- 
tion however communicated. On the 
use of the word, esp. in Eccl. writers, 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 69 
sq-., where this word is fully explained. 

évy waow &yasots| ‘in (sphere of 
the action of xowwveiv) all good things,’ 
zt. e. ‘all temporal blessings; compare 
1 Cor. ix. 11. There does not seem 
sufficient reason for leaving the ancient 
interpretation, KeAever Tots mvevpariKay 
&mroravover peTadiddvar Tay capKiKav, 
CEcum.: see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. 
p- 152 note (Bohn). The usual objec- 
tions are based on the isolation of the 
verse from ver. 5 and ver. 7, which this 
interpretation is thought tocause. This, 
however, does not appear to be the case. 


Cuap. VI. 7, 8. 


lel le) > lal a 
T@ KaTnYovVTL ev TAacW wyaXots. 


tnpiferat. 


The concluding words of ver. 5, if left 
without any further addition, might 
have been misconstrued into an implied 
declaration, that it was not right to be 
chargeable on anybody. This the Apos- 
tle specially, but almost parenthetically, 
obviates, indicating with 5¢ (see above) 
the contrast between the spiritual and 
the temporal application. 

7. wh twAavaode| ‘Be not de- 
ceived ;’ continuation of the subject in a 
more general and extended way, though 
still not without reference to the subject 
of the special command. This solemn 
and emphatic mode of admonition is 
used by St. Paul in two other passages, 
1 Cor. vi. 9, and xv. 33; in the former 
with reference to an evil act, in the lat- 
ter to an evil conclusion, just mentioned. 
In the present case the reference appears 
rather to what follows ; though a refer- 
ence to what precedes (‘ prestringit 
tenaces,’ Parzeus) need not be excluded. 
Ignatius uses the same form, Eph. 5, 
10, Philad. 3, Smyrn. 5. ob 
puKtnpliCetar| ‘ts not (actually or 
with impunity) mocked ;’ «non irridetur,’ 
Vulg. This emphatic word is used 
several times in the LXX, and occa- 
sionally in later classical writers: uur- 
TnpiCew A€youey Tovs ev TH SiawaiCew 
Twas TOUTS Tws Td wepos (uUKTIpa) emo- 
mavras, Etym. M. s. v. wuerhp, p. 594 
ed. Gaisf.). Elsner (Ods. Vol. 1 p. 
199) has illustrated this meaning by a 
few examples, e. g. Quintil. Jnst. vit. 
6. 59, Sueton. August. 4, Cicero, Epist. 
Fam. xv. 19. In Hippoe. p. 1240 p, it 
occurs in the sense of ‘ bleeding at the 
nose.” & yap éav x7. A.) 
‘for whatsoever a man soweth ;’ con- 
firmation of the truth of the preceding 
assertion by means of a significant im- 
age (compare Matth. xiii. 39) derived 


GALATIANS. 


145 


7 un TWravacSe, Ocds od puc- 


a \ 2\ / 4 a \ / 8a 
0 yap €av oTrElpN aYSpwTros, ToUTO Kal Nepices * dre 


from the natural world. TOUTO 
kal Seploe:] ‘this—and nothing 
else than this — shall he also reap ;’ the 
kal with its ascensive force pointing to 
the regularly developed issues. Wetst. 
in loc. aptly cites Cic. de Oret. 1. 65, 
‘ut sementem feceris ita metes,’ On 
this text see two sermons by Farindon, 
Serm. Lxt., Lxu. Vol. 1. p. 52 sq. (Lond. 
1849.) 

8. tt 6 omwelpwr| ‘because he that 
ts sowing ;’ reason for the concluding 
Tovto Kat Seploe:, and exemplification, 
of it in spiritual things; he that is sow- 
ing one kind of seed (the Spirit) will 
reap the regular products and develop- 
ments of that seed; he that is sowing 
another (the flesh), those of that other: 
domep yap ém) tav omepudtwyv ox ev 
omelpovta dpdBous (vetches) oirov auj- 
oa Set yap Tod abtod yévous Kal Thy 
omdpov civat kad Tov dunrdv, Chrys. 
eis Thy odpka éauvTod} ‘unto, or 
for, his own flesh,’ not ‘in carne sua,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.; for though the flesh 
and the Spirit are represented under the 
image of two corn-fields, in which seed 
is sown, and from which the harvest is 
gathered, the meaning of eis is still not 
local (‘in, tanquam in agrum,’ Beng.), 
but, in accordance with its more usual 
meaning, ethical (* carni sue,’ Beza, com- 
pare Copt.); the prepp. used in the N. 
T’. in a strictly local sense being appy. 
év and éwi,—the former in reference 
to the inclosure im which the seed is 
sown (Matth. xiii. 24, 27, ib. 19, and 
metaphorically, Mark iv. 15), — the lat- 
ter to the spot on which it is cast (Matth. 
xiii. 20, 23, Mark iv. 16, 20,31). In 
the expression eis tas dxdvSas (Matth. 
xiii. 22, Mark iv. 18) eis rather means 
‘among ;’ comp. Plato, Leg. vii. 839 A. 
The force of the pronoun éavrod must 


19 


146 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 8, 9. 


e U ’ \ / ° a b n \ , , e 
0 OTTElpwD els THY CdpKa EavTOd eK THS capKos Nepices PYopay, 6 
dé orreipwr eis TO IIvedpa ex tov TIvevpatos Sepioe Swiv aiwvior. 
* TO O€ KaXOV TroLODYTES pi) EyKaKapmEV" KaipP~ yap idiw Yepicopuer 


not be overlooked, selfishness being im- 
plied as well as carnality; ‘caro switati 
dedita est,’ Beng.: compare Aquinas 
(cited by Windisch.), ‘sed nota quod 
cum agit de seminatione carnis dicit, in 
carne sud, quia caro est nobis, de natura 
nostra; sed cum loquitur de. semine 
Spiritus non dicit swo, quia Spiritus 
non est nobis a nobis, sed a Deo.’ 
popdy] ‘corruption,’ —of the whole 
man, both body and soul; not merely 
in the narrower physical sense of ‘ decay’ 
(xal yap adrda PIeipovtra Kal cgumpSelper 
7 o@ua, Chrys.); but also in the fuller 
ethical sense of ‘corruption of soul,’ in 
which of course eternal death and ‘ de- 
struction’ (Hesych. pSopd- dAeSpos) are 
involved and implied: see 2 Pet. i. 4, 
ii. 12, 19, and compare Rom. vi. 21, 
22. The use, however, of @Sopa rather 
than a@mwAcfa (Phil. iii. 19),— though 
it possibly may be introduced as more 
applicable to adpt (Schott), — seems to 
preclude our adopting ‘ destruction’ as 
the primary meaning; see Stier, Ephes. 
Vol. um. p. 180. 

Cwhv aidviov] ‘eternal life;’ why, 
in contrast to the preceding Sopdv 
(comp. Psalm ciii. 4, Jonah ii. 6), and 
that too, as the nature of the principle 
to which the sowing is made distinctly 
On the meaning of 
the term aidévios, comp. notes on 2 Thess. 
i, 9. 

9. 7d 5 naddbv rototyres| ‘But 
in well-doing let us,’ etc.; exhortation 
to perseverance in the form of sowing 
just mentioned, the 5¢ idiomatically in- 
troducing an address after foregoing de- 
tails (compare Eurip. Rhes. 165, vat, ral 


suggests, — aimvov. 


Sika tatira tdta 5é piocddy kK. 7. Az), 
and, though practically approaching in 
meaning to ody (‘so let us not’), still 


preserving its proper force in the contrast 
between the corrupted class just promi- 
nently mentioned, and the better class 
which is now addressed: see exx, in 
Hartung, Partic. 5¢, 2.n, Vol. 1. p. 166. 
On the general and inclusive meaning 
of 7d KaAdv, see notes on ver. 10. 

wy éeyKak@pmerv] ‘let us not lose heart.’ 
Both here and in the other passages 
where the word occurs (Luke xviii. 1. 
2 Cor. iv. 1, 16, Eph. iii, 13, 2 Thess, 
iii, 13) Lachm. and Tisch. read éy«ak. 
instead of éxxax. (Rec., al.), and rightly ; 
as it seems very doubtful whether éxxax. 
is a genuine word at all, and whether 
its occurrence in lexicons and use in 
later writers (see exx. collected by L. 
Dind. in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. v. p. 
430) is not, as Usteri thinks, entirely 
due to these doubtful readings. At any 
rate, if éxxax. exist, the difference will 
be very slight; éxxaxeiy may perhaps 
mean, ‘to retire from fear out of any 
course of action,’ (nearly &moxaxeiv) ; 


, éyxareiv, ‘to behave cowardly,’ ‘to lose 


heart,’ when iv it. In Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. (Vol. 1. p. 833), Polyb. Hist. 1v, 
19. 10 is cited in favor of éxkaxeiy. 
This is an oversight; the reading is 
évexdxnoev, and is actually so cited by 
Rost u. Palm under éyxaxéw; see p. 762. 
katp@ idSi@] in due, proper time; 
‘tempore preestituto” (Beza), the time 
appointed by God for the reward to be 
given; compare karpots idiocs, 1 ‘Tim. ii. 
6, vi. 15. On the present use of the 
dative to denote the space of time within 
which the action takes place, — more 
correctly expressed with an inserted év 
(Rom. iii. 26, 2 Thess, ii. 6, al.), see 
notes on 1 Tim. ii. 16, and comp. Eph. 
ib, £2. aH exaAvdpevorl Sif 
(now) we faint not (in our well-doing’ ), 


Cuap. VI. 9, 10. 


\ > I 
Hn €xdudpevot. ™ dpa odv, ws 


‘ provided that we do not ;’ hypothetical 
use of the temporal participle, the pres- 
ent tense pointing to the state in which 
they must now be if they would reap 
hereafter: see Kriiger, Spruchl. § 56. 
11, and exx. in Schmalfeld, Syné. § 207. 
5, p. 415. The simple predicative con- 


nection with Seploouey ebsol Ws tNSo 

a= o 

—= [et non erit molestum nobis] Syr., 
4 


or the more practically adverbial, ‘ with- 
out fainting ’ (surely not ‘ unweigerlich,’ 
Ewald), scil. wévov Sixa Seploouev 
(Theod., Theoph. al., who thus draw a 
contrast between the toilsome nature of 
the earthly, and the unwearying nature 
of the heavenly harvest) does not seem 
satisfactory. For though this interpre- 
tation cannot be pronounced grammati- 
cally incorrect, on account of the use of 
the wy rather that od (Riick., Schott), — 
the connection of yu with participles be- 
ing so distinctly the prevailing usage in 
the N. T. and later writers (see notes on 
ver. 3, and comp. exx. in Winer, Gr. § 
55, 5, p. 428 sq., and in Gayler, Partic. 
Neg. p. 36), — it still must be rejected 
on exegetical grounds, as adding no par- 
ticular force to the general exhortation ; 
whereas the conditional meaning serves 
fully to bring out the mingled warning 
and encouragement (mpotpéme: kal épér- 
xetat, Chrys.), which seems to pervade 
the verse. The distinction drawn 
by Beng. between éxxarety (in velle) and 
éxAveoSa: (in posse), the former referring 
to the faintness of heart, the latter to 
the wnstrung state, and the ‘ (interna) 
virium remissio’ seems fairly tenable: 
see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v., from 
which we may select. (though with a 
more simply physical ref.), Plutarch, 
Moral. vi. 613, éxAeAvuévos kal Kexun- 


nas. A sensible sermon on this verse 


GALATIANS. 


147 


“ 


\ 
Katpov éxouev, epyatoueSa 7d 


will be found in Sherlock, Serm. xxxrx. 
Vol. 1. p. 275 sq. (ed. Hughes). 

10. &pa ovv] * Accordingly then,’ 
‘So then ;’ collective and inferential ex- 
hortation arising immediately out of the 
preceding statements, and bringing toa 
natural close the group of verses begin- 
ning with ver, 6, and the more directly 
hortatory portion of the epistle. The 
proper meaning of apw, rebus ita com- 
paratis, and its primary reference to 
simple ‘progression to another step in 
the argument’ (Donalds. Crat. § 192), 
is here distinctly apparent; its weaker 
ratiocinative force being supported by 
the collective power of ody: ‘as things 
are so, let us in consequence of their 
being so,’ ete. In Attic Greek this 
combination is only found in the case 
of the interrogative dpa; see Herm. 
Viger, No. 292, and on the general dis- 
tinction between &pa and ody, see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717, — but compare 
Donalds, Gr, § 604, and notes on ch. 
iii. 5. @s Kkatpdv éxo- 
ev] ‘as we have opportunity,’ zt. e. ‘an 
appointed season for so doing;’ not 
merely ‘prout,’ 7, e. quandocunque et 
quotiescunque occasio nascatur’ ( Wolf), 
but, ‘as, in accordance with the circum- 
stances ;’ see Meyer in loc. ‘The parti- 
cle és is thus rather causal, ‘quoniam’ 
(Ust., al.), nor ¢emporal «dum’ (Vulg,, 
Clarom., Syr.-Phil.), as appy. Ign. 
Smyrn. 9, &s ert xapby exouerv (both, 
esp. the latter, very doubtful meanings 
in St. Paul’s Epp., though not uncom- 
mon in classical writers; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 1. p. 759), but has only its 
simple relative force; the true link be- 
tween this and the preceding verse being 
supplied by «apdés (Brown, p. 348) ; ‘as 
there is a xapds for 7d Sepifew, so is 
there one for md o7melpew. As we have 
it then, let us act accordingly and make 


148 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 10, 11, 


? \ X , a \ \ 31 up nA 
ayaSov mpos mdvtas, padvota 5é mpds Tovs oixelouvs Tis 


TLOTEWS. 


Recapitulation. Your 
false teachers seek to have 


[dere mnrikow bylv ypdupacw éeypaya 


you circumcised to avoid persecution and to boast of your submission. All true boasting, however, must be 


in Christ and His Cross. 


the most of it ;’ xaremetye: kal cvvwSe?, 
Chrys. Hammond (on Phil. iv. 10) 
translates ‘xa:pdy ‘ ability,’ but the exx. 
cited by Wetst. im loc. will show this 
modification to be quite unnecessary. 

Td ayaddy] ‘that which is good; 
‘the thing which in each ease is good,’ 
whether considered in a spiritual or 
temporal sense. The distinction between 
7d xaddv, as implying good in its highest 
sense, and 7d dyaddy, as referring more 
particularly to kindness, ete. (Baum.- 
Crus.), does not seem tenable in the 
N. T.: as 7d «addy includes what is 
beneficent (Matth. xii. 12), as well as 
what is morally good (1 Thess. v. 21), 
80 Td dyaSdv includes what is morally 
and essentially good (Rom. ii. 10), as 
well as what is merciful (Philem. 14, 
compare Eph. iv. 28), — a&yadwotvny as 
well as edzottay, Heb. xiii. 16 ; compare 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 21. The 
reading épya(éueda adopted by Lachm. 
ed. sterest. (but retracted in larger ed.) 
with AB?J and some mss., is rightly re- 
jected by recent editors on decidedly 
preponderant external evidence [B1CDE 
FGK (-cwueSa), and a great majority of 
mss. Vv. and Ff.] and not without some 
probability of the interchange of the o 
and w (though rare in such MSS. as B) 
being here accidental; comp. Scrivener, 
Collat. p. LXIx. sq. mpods ToUs 
oixelovs tis mlor.] ‘unto them 
who belong unto the faith. The mean- 
ing of zpds is here not merely the gen- 
eral ethical one, with regard to, but the 
particular one, erga ; comp. Eph. vi. 9, 
1 Thess. v. 14 (notes), and exx. in 
Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 361. The mean- 
ing erga, or contra (this latter rare if a 
hostile notion is not implied in the verb, 


Joseph. Apion. 1. 31) will result from 
the context. With regard to the pecu- 
liar phrase oixe?o: rHs micrews, it may be 
observed that it does not appear to in- 
volve any allusion to ofxos in the pecu- 
liar sense of ‘ the house of God’ (Schott), 
or to any especial idea of composing a 
single family (Reuss, Théol. Chreét. tv. 
p. 124), as the numerous exx. from lat- 
ter writers of this use of oixeZos with an 
abstract subst. (e. 9g. oixeto: piAocodias, 
dAryapxlas, yewypapias, tpupijs) all seem 
to show that the adjective has lost its 
meaning of peculiar, and only retains 
that of general though close connection ; 
see Schweigheus. Lex. Polyb. s. v., and 
Wetst. 72 foc. A sermon on this and 
the preceding verse, but of no particular 
character, will be found in Tillotson, 
Serm, txxxrx. Vol. mu. p. 592 (Lond. 
1752). 

ll. mnAlkots duty ypdppacty 
Zypawa] ‘in what large letters I have 
written to you.” The only possible way 
of arriving, even approximately, at the 
meaning of this much debated clause, 
is to adhere closely to the simple lexical 
meanings of the words. These it will 
be best to notice separately. 
mnAtkos strictly denotes geometrical 
magnitude, ‘how large’ (comp. Plato, 
Meno, 82, wodrtkn tis Zora émelvouv 7 
ypauuh ; so too Zachar. ii. 2. wnAtkov 7d 
. TnAlkoy Td ujKos) in contra- 
distinction to arithmetical magnitude, 
expressed by méaos, ‘how many.’ This 
meaning and distinction appear to have 
been observed in the N. T., as in the 
only other passage in which myAlxos 
occurs, Heb. vii. 4, wyAlxos ovros, the 
same primary idea of magnitude (though 
in an ethical sense) is distinctly recog- 


TAGTOS .. 


Cuap. VI. 1l. 


nizable. To assume then in the present 
case (a) any confusion of ayAlxos with 
méaos (Schott, Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I, p. 221, Bohn), when there is no trace 
of such a usage either in the N. T. or 
LXX, seems distinctly wneritical ; nor 
can (db) any assumed equivalence with 
motos (* qualibus literis,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
Arm., ‘wileikaim,’ Goth., compare 
Hesych. anAikxov, oiev, dmotov, and see 
Tholuck, Anzeig. 1834, No. 32), and 
any reference to the d&uopdia of the let- 
ters (Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., Theod. 
2; comp. Zonar. Lex. 8. v. wnAlkov: 7d év 
Gpoppia iv. &s mapa TH ArootdAw: Bere 
k. T. A., Vol. 11. p. 1547) be pronounced 
otherwise than purely arbitrary; for 
magnitude does not mean shapelessness. 
We can have then no other correct trans- 
lation than simply, ‘how large ;’ &yav 
ulgoow exphoaro ypdupacw, Theod., — 
who, however, appears to limit the au- 
tographic portion to what follows, 
ypadupmato may be interpreted ‘an 
epistle;’ see Acts xxviii. 21, compare 
1 Mace. v. 10, Ignat. Rom. 8: but (a) 
St. Paul in no other passage so uses it, 
though he has occasion to use a word 
denoting a letter (émucroAfq) seventeen 
times; and (4) this species of cognate 
dative ypdWat ypduuacw (compare eimé 
Adyy, Matth. viii. 8) is not found in St, 
Paul’s Epp., nor has here any of the 
additional force which the usage implies 
(Bernh. Syné. 111. 16, p. 107), and which 
alone could account for the introduction 
of a third dative (instead of the natural 
accus.) in a sentence of eight words. 
We seem, therefore, forced to adhere to 
the simple meaning, ‘ letters, characters,’ 
as in Luke xxiii. 38, 2 Cor. iii. 7 ( Ree.) : 
so Copt. han-skhai, and appy. Arm. ; 
the other Vv. are ambiguous. 

Zypawa| ‘I wrote,’ or in idiomatic 
Eughsh, —‘I have written,’ in ref. to 
the whole foregoing epistle; not ‘I 
write’ (Scholef. Hints p. 197, Conyb., 
al.), epistolary aorist. The real diffi- 


GALATIANS. 


149 


culty lies in this word, owing to the 
different conclusions to which historical 
and grammatical considerations appear 
respectively to lead us. On the one 
hand it appears distinctly (Rom. xvi. 
22, 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 
Thess. iii. 17), that St. Paul was in the 
habit of using an amanuensis, and of 
adding only the concluding words, 
From ver. 11 to end would seem, then, 
very probably such addition. But, on 
the other hand, it is very~ doubtful 
whether St. Paul or any of the writers 
of the N. T. ever use the epistolary aor. 
éypaya exclusively in reference to what 
follows. The aorist in all cases appears 
to have its proper force, either (a) in 
reference to a former letter (1 Cor. v. 9, 
2 Cor. ii. 3, iv. 9, vii. 12, 3 John 9 [see 
Liicke in Joc.]), or (6) in reference to an 
epistle now brought to its conclusion: 
(Rom. xv. 15, 1 Pet. v. 12), or (ce) toa 
foregoing portion of the epistle (1 Cor. 
ix. 15, 1 John ii. 21 [see Liicke and 
Huther in loc.]; compare Philem. 19), 
and even stands in a species of antithe- 
sis to ypdw in reference to what has 
already been written (1 John ii. 14, 
where see Huth.); see Winer, Gr. § 40. 
5. 2, p. 249, and notes on Philem. 19. 
With this partially conflicting evidence 
it seems impossible to decide positively 
whether St. Paul wrote the whole epistle 
or only the concluding portion. On the 
whole, however, the use of é@ypawa, es- 
pecially when contrasted with ypdow 
(2 Thess. iii. 17), inclines us to the 
former supposition, and we thus con- 
clude, that to prevent any possible mis- 
take as to the authorship of the epistle 
(Chrys. ; compare 2 Thess, ii. 2), — es- 
pecially as this was an encyclical mis- 
sive (ch. i. 2, where see Olsh.),— St. 
Paul here deviated from his usual cus- 
tom, and wrote the whole letter with 
his own hand (Chrysostom, Theod., 
Theoph., G&cum.), and in characters, 
whether from design or inexpertness, 


150 


12 


TH é€wh xeepl. 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 12, 18. 


4 / > n > & 
ogot Sé€Xovoew EevTpOTwWTTaL ~EV TapKL OUTOL 


avayKifovow tuas Tepitéwver Sat, wovov iva TS cTAavp@ Tod Xpic- 
an ¢ 
Tov pr) SwwKwvTat. ™ ovdé yap ol TEpLTE“VopEvoL avTOL Vvopov 


2. didxwvra] Tisch. didxovtra, with ACFGJK: many mss.; few, however, 


will hesitate to consider this an improbable solccism. 


The text is rightly adopted 


by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Alf., with B (Mai) DE, and appy. many mss. The 
transposition iva uh (Rec. with FGJK ; mss.) is rightly rejected by nearly all recent 


editors. 


larger than those of the ordinary aman- 
uensis. 

12. Scot SEAovery] ‘as many as 
wish ;’ concluding warning against the 
false Teachers whose true motives are 
here exposed, and contrasted with those 
which influenced the Apostle (ver. 14). 
edTpocwTjoat é€v capKil| ‘to 
make a fair show in the flesh,’ not so 
little as ‘placere,’ Vulg., Clarom., or 


even o soroA.aJ9 (ut glorientur] 
<< 4 we 


Syr., but rather ‘pulchram faciem as- 
sumere’ [shi skenho] Copt., scil. ‘to 
wear a specious exterior in the earthly 
unspiritual element in which they move. 
The verb evrpocwréw is not used by any 
earlier writer: but from the use of the adj. 
eimpéowmos ‘fair and specious’ (Herod. 
vit. 168, Demosth. Coron. p. 277}; see 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 200), and the 
similar compounds, ceuvorpocwméw ( Aris- 
toph. Nub. 363), and gavorpotwréw (Cic. 
Att. vit. 21), cited by the commentators 
on this verse, the meaning would appear 
correctly stated by Chrys. as eidoxima, 
though not necessarily rapa avSpdrois ; 
see below. The appended words év capx) 
are commonly explained, either (a) ‘in 
with 
physical reference to circumcision; or 


observatione rerum carnalium,’ 
(6) ‘apud homines,’ with reference to 
judgment and opinions of others, — iva 
avSpdros apéowor, Chrys. thy mapa ay- 
Spérwv Inpdueva Sdtav, Theod, Both 
interpretations, however, seem distinctly 
insufficient, as they put out of sight that 


more profound and far-reaching meaning 
of odpt, ‘the earthly existence and con- 
ditions of man,’ ‘notio 
externarum’ (Schott), which pervades 
this whole epistle; see notes ch. v. 16, 
and Miiller, on Sin, ch. m. ad fin., Vol. 
1. p. 353 (Clark). ob o1| ‘these ;’ 
it is this class and this preéminently, 
that are engaged in constraining you, 
etc. ; see notes ch. iii. 7. T@ 
otaup@| ‘on account of the cross ;’ not 
exactly *in cruce’ (Copt.), but ‘ob cru- 
cem’ (Beza), scil. ‘for preaching the 
doctrine of the cross of Christ.’ The 
dative points out the ground or cause of 
the persecution ; compare Rom. xi. 20, 
efexAdodnoay TH amiotia, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Syné. 
11. 14, p. 102. The ablatival explana- 
tion, that they may be persecuted with 
the cross of Christ (* perpessiones Christi,’ 
2 Cor. i. 5, Grot., comp. Vulg. ‘ crusis 
Christi persecutionem ’), ‘either, on the 
one hand, involves an unsatisfactory ex- 
planation of 6 o7ravpds, — which, as 
Brown (p. 359) rightly observes, in such 
expressions as the present always implies 
the fact of the atoning death of Christ, 
— or, on the other, causes a still more 
untenable meaning to be assigned to 
didkwvTat, viz. § lest the doctrine of Christ 
wear a hostile aspect to them,’ as Neand. 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 226 (Bohn). The 
meaning, ‘that they may not follow 
after,’ Arm. (comp. Aéth. ‘ut non ad- 
hereatis’), is wholly untenable. 

13. ob5& yap... adrol| ‘For not 


universa rerum 


Cuap. VI. 13, 14. 


GALATIANS. 


151 


/ a . a 
gurdocovew, ad\rAa Yéedovow twas TepitéwveoSar iva ev TH vpe- 
/ \ a 
tépa capki Kavyjcovta.  éwol dé wn yévoito KavyaoSas ei wy 


even they, ‘nam ne ipsi quidem,’ Beza, 
—they of whom it might reasonably 
have been expected ; confirmation of the 
preceding by a statement of the openly 
lax conduct of the Judaizers, and of the 
true motives by which they were influ- 
enced ; tantum abest, ut illorum intersit, 
a vobis legem observari,’ Beng. On the 
force of 0d8¢—aAAd, see on ch. i. 17. 

of mepttepvdpuervos| ‘those who are 
having themselves circumcised,’ ‘ qui cir- 
cumciduntur,’ Vulg.; pres. part., with 
reference to the prevailing practice of 
the false teachers either in respect of 
themselves or others. The explanation 
of Peile, Hilgenfeld, al., according to 
which the pres. part. wepeteuv. loses its 
precise temporal reference (Winer, Gr. 
§ 45. 7, p. 316) and combines with the 
article to form a kind of subst., ‘the 
party or advocates of the circumcision’ 
(comp. obra of mepitenvdueva, Acta Pet. 
et Paul. § 63, cited by Hilgenfeld), is 
plausible, but perhaps not necessary ; as 
the use of the pres. may be fairly ex- 
plained on the ground that St. Paul 
includes in the idea not merely their 
conformity to the rite (which strictly 
becomes a past act), but their endeavor 
thereby to draw others into the same state, 
which is a present and continuing act. 
It must be admitted that the reading, 
mepitetunueva. [Lachm., Scholz, Rinck, 
Mey., with BJ; 40 mss.; Clarom., al. ; 
Lat. Ff.] would give a more appropriate 
sense; the external authorities, however 
[ACDEK; Vulg., Syr. (both), al.; 
Marcion, ap. Epiph., Chrys., Theodoret, 
al.], are distinctly in favor of the more 
difficult reading, wepiteuvduevot. 

vdpmov] ‘the law.’ Middleton here ex- 
plains the anarthrous ydéuos as ‘moral 
obedience’ (‘the principle of Law,’ 
Peile), adducing the parallel passage, 


Rom. ii. 25; but there also, as here, 
véuos is the Mosaic law: see Alford on 
Rom. t.c. The reason why these Ju- 
daizers did not keep the law is not to be 
referred to their distance from Jerusalem 
(Theod.), nor to any similarly extenuat- 
ing circumstances, but, as the context 
seems to show, is to be attributed simply 
to their consummate hypocrisy; see 
Meyer én Joc. é€v, TH buetéepa 
capi] ‘in your flesh,’ — ‘your bodily 
and ritualistic mutilation;’ ¢. e. év T@ 
katakdmrrew Thy buetépay odpxa, Theoph., 
— not their own observances of that law 
for which they are affecting so zealously 
to contend. There is no contradiction 
between the two motives assigned for 
their enforcement of the circumcision. 
The second, as Usteri observes, states 
positively what the first did negatively. 
They boasted that they had not only 
made Christian, but Jewish converts 
(* quod 
Beza), and thus sought to escape perse- 
cution at the hands of the more bigoted 
Jews. 


vos Judaismo implicuerint,’ 


14. éwol 3¢ wy yév. kavx.] ‘But 
from me far be it that I boast ;’ con- 
trasted statement (5¢) of the feelings of 
the Apostle and the substratum on 
which his xatxnois alone rested. For 
exx. of this use of yévo:ro with an infin., 
see Gen. xliv. 7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, al., 
and Polyb. Hist. xv. 10. 4, undevd yé- 
vowto jweipay bua AaBeEiv. év TO 
aotavp| ‘in the cross: i. e. in the 
principle of the sufferings and death of 
Christ being the only means whereby 
we are justified and reconciled unto God 
(Rom. v. 9, 10); Kal rl éore 7d Kadxqua 
Tov aotavpov; “Ore 6 Xpiords BC eue roy 
SodAov, Toy exSpdv, Tov ayvduovas GAR’ 
obra me ydmnoev ds Kal EavTdy exDovvat 
apa, Chrys. See a sound sermon on this 


152 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 14, 15. 


> fot A la} U € a , a a ’ ee | \ / 
év TO atavp® Tod Kupiov jpav ’Incod Xpictod, 80 0b ewol Kdc- 


3 / b] \ an f A. 
Mas €o TUUPWTAL Kayo TO KOO lead 


AS oF \ , ” 
OUTE yap TWEPLTOLY) TL EOTLW 


15. ore ydp] So Tisch. with B; 17; Syr. (both), Goth., Sah, Aith., Arm. ; 
Chrys., Syncell.; Hieron., Aug. (De. W., Mey., Bagge, Alf.) much commended 
by Griesb.; approved by Mil (Prolegom. p. 85). The longer reading, év yap 
Xpiot@ “Inood is found in ACDEFGJK; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Aith.-Platt, Syr.- 


text by Beveridge, Serm. xxi. Vol. 1. p. 
396 sq. A. C. Libr.). 50 of] 
‘by whom ;’ scil. by whose crucifixion.’ 
The relative may refer either to cravpds 
(Theodoret), or to "Inc. Xpiatés. It is 
curious that Baumg. Crus. in adopting 
the latter reference, and Windischm. the 
former, should both urge that, on the 
contrary supposition, St. Paul would 
have writien év 6 instead of 3? of. As 
far as this argument goes, both are right 
(see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, 347), 
though probably the frequent use of éy 
in the N. T. with reference to Christ is 
slightly in favor of Windischm. comp. 
Eph. i. 7. The context, however, is a 
far surer guide, and here, as the impor- 
tant and indeed emphasized subject tod 
Kup. iju. ‘Ino. Xp. immediately precedes, 
the relative will more naturally seem to 
refer to those words, kéopmos| 
‘the world ;’ t& Biwtixda mpdyyata, Chrys. ; 
not ‘res et religio Judaica,’ Schoettg. 
The full meaning has been well expressed 
by Calvin, ‘mundus procul dubio op- 
ponitur nove creature; quicquid ergo 
contrarium est spirituali Christi regno 
mundus est, quia ad veterem hominem 
pertinet. Mundus est quasi objectum 
et scopus veteris hominis’ (cited by 
Peile). The present omission of the 
article with «déoyos is very unusual, and 
only to be accounted for by the supposi- 
tion that «toues was sometimes prac- 
tically regarded in the light of a proper 
name: in all other places in the N. T., 
except the present, 2 Cor. v. 9, and, 
somewhat differently, 2 Pet. ii. 5, the 
omission is only found after a preposi- 


tion (1 Cor. viii. 4, Phil. ii. 15, Col. ii. 
20), or when the noun is under the regi- 
men of a preceding substantive (John 
xvii. 24, Rom. i. 28, iv. 13, xi. 12, 15, 
Eph. i. 4, al); see Middl., Gr. Art. p. 
350 (ed. Rose), Winer, Gr. 19. p. 112. 
Whether in the concluding member 
the article is to be retained or rejected 
(Lachm.) is very doubtful. The exter- 
nal authority (ABCIDIFG; 17, Orig. 
(3), Ath., al.] for «dou is very strong; 
still as an omission to conform with the 
preceding member seems highly proba- 
ble, and the external authority [C3C3E 
JK; nearly all mss.; Clem., Orig. (7), 
and many Ff.] of considerable weight, 
we retain with Tisch, Mey., al., the 
longer reading 7@ ndopy. é not} 
‘to me ;’ dative of what is termed ‘ eth- 
ical relation, —a usage of this case 
which is more fully developed in the 
dat. commodi or incom. ; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 31. 4, p. 190, Bernhardy, Syné¢. 1m. 9, 
p- 85, Kriiger, Sprachi. § 48. 5. This 
reciprocal crucifixion is a forcible mode 
of expressing the utter cessation of all 
communion between the Apostle and 
world: as Schott well observes, ‘alter 
pro mortuo habet alterum ;’ compare 
John vi. 56, 2 Thess. i. 12, 1 Cor. vi. 13. 
On the profound significance of these 
expressions of union with Christ, comp. 
Reuss, Théol, Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 
164. 

15. ore ydp] ‘For neither ;’ ex- 
planatory confirmation of the preceding 
words 8 05 x. Tr. A., eles oravpod diva- 
PIs GS 0» yap 5} udvov ta Tov Kdopov 
Tpayuara évéxpwoev altg mayta, ah\Ad Ta 


Cap. VI. 15, 16. 


GALATIANS. 


153 


# ’ / b) \ a 
ouTe axpoPvaTia, adAa Kay KTicts. ™ Kal door TO KavdV TOUT@ 


Phil. with asterisk; Theod., Dam.; Ambrst., al. (Rec., Scholz, Lachm.). The 
external evidence is thus very strong; still, the probability that the longer reading 
is a gloss from ch. v. 6, seems so great that, supported as we are by ancient Vv., 


we do not hesitate in adhering to the shorter reading. 


The reading ioxvet 


(Rec. with D3JK ; mss. ; al.), has less claim on attention. 


THs woAtTelas THs Tadaias avbtepov ToA- 
AG natéornoe, Chrys. On the reading, 
see critical note. Kkalvh «tie 
ots] ‘anew creature. Kriois has two 
meanings in the N. T.; active, ‘the act 
of creation’ (Rom. i. 20) passive, ‘the 
thing created,’ — whether personal and 
individual (2 Cor. v. 17), or impersonal 
and collective (Rom. viii. 19). Hither 
meaning will suit the present passage ; 
the latter, perhaps (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17, 
ef tis é€v Xpiotg, Kawh xtlois is most 
probable. ‘The form of expression may 
possibly have originated from the use of 
the similar term MEM m2, to denote 
proselytes (Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. 
p- 328); the meaning, however, and 
application, is here, of course, purely 
Christian. On these words see an ad- 
mirable sermon by Hammond, Serm. 
xxvit. Part. 1. p. 380 sq. (A. C. Libr.), 
comp. also Beveridge, Serm. x1x. Vol. 1. 
p. 342 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and five ser- 
mons by Tillotson, Serm, Vol. 111. p. 324 
sq. (Lond. 1752). 

16. kat Goo] ‘and as many as 
walk ;’ prominent specification of the 
personal subjects in regard of whom the 
prayer is offered, the nominatival clause 
standing isolated, and passing kar’ ava- 
KoAovdiay into another structure; see 
Jelf. Gr. § 477. 1. The reading is 
doubtful. On the one hand, the fut. 
oroxhoovew is fairly supported [B ( Mai.) 
C*JK; mss.; Vulg.; Chrys., Theod.], 
and perhaps not quite so hkely to have 
been changed from the pres. as vice 
versd. Still, on the other, as the ex- 
ternal evidence [AC!DEFG ; mss, ; Cla- 

20 


rom.; Syr. (both), Goth., Copt. (appy.), 
Arm. ; Chrys., Jerome, Aug,, al | is very 
strong, aud a change to a future, as 
pointing out the course the Galatians 
were to follow, not wholly improbable, 
we adopt with Tisch., De W., al. the 
present ororxovow. TO Ka- 
vovti TOVTe| ‘according to this rule,’ 
scil. of faith; Kavdva éxdAcoe Thy mpo- 
Kemevnv didacxadrtay, Theod. It is per- 
haps slightly doubtful whether we are 
here to adopt the more literal meaning 
‘directing line’ (Mey.), 


{tem.0 [Semitam] Syr.) or the more 
2 = 


derivative meaning ‘ maxim,’ 


of Kavév, 


‘norma 
vivendi’ (garaideinai, Goth., heg [lex] 
Z&th.); the former seems, at first sight, 
in better accordance with oroxotow, 
but as this verb is used above (ch. v. 16), 
with but little tinge of its physical 
meaning (contrast Rom. iv. 12), and as 
kay@v may very naturally be referred to 
the principle stated in ver, 15, the latter 
and metaphorical meaning (7a Kavdén 
kal 1H 8id3axH Tatty, Gécum.) is here to 
be preferred. On the derivative mean- 
ing of xavéy, see an article by Planck, 
in Comment. Theol. Vol. 1. 1, p. 209 sq. 
and for exx. Elsner, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 201. 
The dat. is obviously the dativus norme ; 
see notes on ch. v. 16, Winer, Gr. § 31. 
6, p. 193, Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. m. 
p. 142, eiphyn éw adrtods| 
‘peace be upon them,’ ‘super illos,’ 
Vulg., Clarom., not perhaps without 
some idea of peace and mercy coming 
down upon them from heaven (Mey.); 
comp. Acts xix. 6, 2 Cor. xii. 9. It has 


154 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 16, 17. 


a a A \ ] \ 
atoryovcw, eipyvn er avTovds Kal Ede0s, kal émt tov Iopair Tov 


cod. 


Trouble me not: I am 
Christ’s accredited  ser- 
vant. 


pov Bactato. 
been urged (De W.) that éorly or fora 
(Syr. joo) comp. Chrys.) is here to be 


supplied rather than ef, and that the 
verse is to be regarded as declaratory, 
and not benedictory. Both the position 
of the verse, however, and the signifi- 
cant union of eipfvn and ZAcos (1 Tim. 
i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, 2 John 3, Jude 2) seem 
in favor of the ordinary construction ; 
érnitatro toy zdcov Kal Thy eiphvyny, 
Theod. The order (contrast 1 Tim. i. 2, 
2 Tim. i. 2, Jude 2) may be due to the 
fact that the Apostle desires to put the 
effect before the ‘ causa efficiens’ ( Mey.) 
as more in harmony with the reassuring 
character of the benediction, or arises 
merely from the feeling that in the 
absence of xdpis, eiphyn formed the 
more natural commencement. Jude 2 
is rather different, owing to the addition 
of aydrn. On the meaning of Acos, as 
involving not only ‘ misericordia’ (ocK- 
tipuds), but ‘ipsum miseris succurrendi 
studium,’ see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69, 
sq. kal éwl rdv "lopana 
T00 @eod] ‘and upon the Israel of 
God.’ It is doubtful whether xa} is ex- 
plicative, ‘namely, upon the Israel of 
God,’ or simply copulative. The ex- 
planatory xaf, though needlessly ob- 
truded on several passages of the N. T., 
is still distinctly found in St. Paul's 
Epp. (contr. De Wette), see Fritz. Rom. 
ix. 23, Vol. 1. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 53. 
3, p. 388. Still, as it is doubtful whether 
kal is ever used by St. Paul in so marked 
an explicative force as must here be as- 
signed (the exx. cited by Meyer, 1 Cor, 
iii. 5, viii. 11, xv. 38, do not seem con- 
clusive), and as it seems still more doubt- 


17 a aA 4 5 \ / 
TOV AOLTTOU KOTTOUS MOL PNOELS TTAPEYET@” 
“, 2 a] al 
éym yap Ta otiypata Tod ‘Incod é&v TH c@pati 


ful whether Christians generally could 
be called ‘the Israel of God’ (contrast 
Brown, p. 382), the simple copulative 
meaning seems most probable (Ps. 
Ambr., Grot., Est.). St. Paul includes 
all in his blessing, of whatever stock 
and kindred; and then, with his 
thoughts turning (as they ever did) to 
his own brethren after the flesh (Rom. 
ix. 3), he pauses to specify those who 
were once Israelites according to the 
flesh (1 Cor. x. 18), but now are the 
Israel of God (‘rod @cod auctorem in- 
nuit, quem Deus veluti peculium suum 
reddidit,’ Schott), — true spiritual chil- 
dren of Abraham. 

17. ro® Aotrod| ‘Henceforth ; not 
for amd tod Aoiwod (Bos, Ellips. p. 461, 
Brown), or for Aourdy (Bloomf.), though 
commonly used both for it and +d Aormdy 
in later writers (Bernh. Synt. 111. 36, p. 
145), but the correct temporal genitive, 
denoting ‘the time within which,’ or 
at some epoch of which the action is 
represented as taking place; compare 
Madvig, Synt. § 66. a. Thus, taken 
strictly, tod Aorwod x. 7. A. iS, ‘let no 
one at any time in the future,’ ete., 7d 
Aoumdy kK. T.A., ‘let no one during the 
future,’ ete. ; comp. Herm. ad Vig. No. 
26, ‘rd Aourdby dicitur et tod Aorrod, hoc 
discrimine, quod 7d Aomdy continuum 
et perpetuum tempus significat; rod 
Aourod «autem repetitionem ejusdem 
facti reliquo tempore indicat.’ The 
general temporal genitive, it may be 
remarked, appears to be more correctly 
referred to the partitive force of that 
case, than to ideas either of origination 
or antecedence (Hartung, Casus, p. 34, 
Jelf, Gr. § 523), or of possession ( Alf.) 5 





Cuap. VI. 17, 18. 


Benediction. 


GALATIANS. 


155 


*°H yxapis tod Kupiov jpav Incot Xpuc- 


n \ rn a e fal > / > 7 
TOU META TOD TrVEdMATOS LUmV, AdEAHoi* apr. 


see Scheuerl. Synt. § 15, p. 
Donalds. Gr. § 451. 

kémous TapexéTw] ‘cause trouble ;’ 
surely not by obliging the Apostle to 
send further letters, but by troubling his 
spirit by their inability (carevouevor, 
GEcum.), and still more, as the next 
clause shows, by thwarting his apostolic 
authority. éyw yap] ‘for I; 
reason for the command ; the éyw being 
emphatic and in opposition to the false 
teachers, — not to uydels (De W.), un- 
less considered as one of them, — and 
the yap introducing the fact that he was 
a fully accredited servant of Christ: e?s 
poBov treidva euBddAdAwv Kal Tryvis TOUS 
map avrov texévtas vduous, Chrys. 

Ta oTlypatal] ‘the marks ;’ the local 
addition é€y r@ oéuari mov necessarily 
referring the term to the wounds and 
scars and outward tokens of the persecu- 
tions and sufferings which the Apostle 
had undergone in the service of Christ ; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi, 23 sq. There is appy. 
further a distinct allusion to the marks 
burnt on slaves to denote whom they 
belonged to; compare Herod, vi. 233, 
éoriCov orlyu. Bacirhia, Martial, Epigr. 
x1. 61, ‘stigmate non meo,’ and espe- 
cially Deyling, Odserv. Sacr. Vol. 1. 
No. 43, p. 423 sq., where the various 
classes of orrypatropdépa are enumerated, 
and the whole subject copiously illus- 
trated. The gen. Ino 0d thus indicates, 
neither origin (‘ auctore Christo,’ Gom.), 
nor remote reference to (* propter Chris- 
tum,’ Pisc.; compare Olsh.,—a most 
doubtful translation both here and 2 Cor. 
i. 5), but simply the owner ; the marks 
attested who the Apostle’s Master was ; 
and were the ‘signa militize Christi que 
me comprobant ejus esse,’ Gloss. Interl. 


100, 


(cited by Bagge). The insertion 
of Kupiov before Incod (Rec.) is fairly 
supported [C®D°EJK; mss. Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Syr. (both), Goth., 7Eth.-Platt), 
but owing to the variations (D1FG; jay 
"I. X.; Copt., Aith.-Pol., al., rod Xp.; 
al. aliter) rightly rejected by Lachm., 
Tisch. [ABC!; mss.; Amit., — but not 
Aith., Arm., as Tisch., Alf.] in favor 
of the text. Bacra w| ‘I bear;’ 
either in the ‘sensus molestus’ of ch. v. 
10, vi. 5, or perhaps, with some solem- 
nity, in ref. to the dignifying nature of 
his Master's marks: ov« efrev, exw, 
GAAd, Baotd(w, domep tis ém) tpotators 
Beya ppovav } onuelors BaciAtkois, Chrys. ; 
compare Acts ix. 15, Baordom 7d dbvoud 
pov, and Clem. Hom. ap. Coteler, Vol. 
I. p. 692, eixdva cod Bacrdcew. 

18. 7 xdpts x. 7. A.] On the varied 
nature of the Apostle’s concluding bene- 
dictions, see the exx. and illustrations in 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 28. 
Tod mvevuatos buoy] ‘be with 
your spirit ;’ not appy. with any allu- 


meTa 


sion to the odpt (amdywv aito’s Tay cap- 
xuav, Chrys.), but simply with reference 
to the mvedua as the ‘ potior pars’ of man 
(‘hominem a potior; parte sic antiquis 
dici Theologis, nee novum nec inusita- 
tum est,’ Heinsius, Exerc. p. 429), and 
not improbably to the fact that it is in the 
spirit of man that the operations of grace 
make themselves felt ; 77 Wuxi Thy xdpw 
émedxeTar yeveoSa, CGicum.; compare 
Philem. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 22, and notes in 
loc. &5eAgpot| Here the un- 
usual position of the word seems to be 
intentional: they were indeed brethren, 
and though for a while severed from the 
Apostle, and the subjects of his censure, 
still brethren in their common Lord. 








ah 


NET Hebe im <n 





iG Pee, Bt RG 





Tue general principles on which this translation has been drawn up are 
explained in the Preface. I will here only again remind the reader that, as 
a general rule, I have not departed from the Authorized Version, unless it 
appears to be either incorrect, inexact, insufficient, obscure, or (see notice to 
Transl. of Past. Epp.) noticeably inconsistent in its translations of more im- 
portant expressions. These deviations are all stated in the notes, and if not 
there specially alluded to, or self-evident, will be found to depend on reasons 
assigned in the Commentary. I have also subjoined, in all the more impor- 
tant cases, citations from eight of the older versions, viz., those of Wiclif, 
Tyndale, Coverdale, (Bible), Coverdale (Testament), Cranmer, Geneva, 
Bishops’, and Rheims. For the citations from five of these (Wiclif’s, Tyn- 
dale’s, Cranmer’s, the Genevan and Rhemish Versions), I am indebted to 
Tue Eneuisn Hexapta, of Messrs. Bagster. Those from Coverdale have 
been taken respectively from the first edition of his Bible in 1535 (now made 
accessible to the general reader by the reprint of the same publishers), and 
from the same venerable translator’s Duglott Testament of 1538, which, 
though expressly taken from the Latin, still contains some interesting and 
suggestive translations. ‘The citations from the Bishops’ Bible are derived 
from the second and slightly amended edition of 1572, a copy of the N. T. 
portion of which, in small portable quarto, appy. differing only from the folio 
edition in the modes of spelling, has been sometimes used for the sake of con- 
venience. All these extracts, though but of doubtful authority in disputed 
texts, will still be found frequently to suggest useful alternative renderings, 
and will also give the reader such a practical acquaintance with the princi- 
ples on which the Authorized Version was drawn up, as will tend to make 
him thankfully acknowledge, that it is truly, what Selden termed it, “ the best 
translation in the world.” 

The abbreviations in the notes will, I think, easily explain themselves. It 
may be only necessary to remark, that where an asterisk is affixed to a cita- 
tion from the Authorized Version, the deviation in the text has arisen from a 
different reading. In the text, the italics (which slightly differ from those 


160 NOTICE. 

in the first edition of the Auth. Vers) denote, as usual, words not in the 
original ; the small capitals mark words which are emphatic in the original, 
but which could not occupy an emphatic position in the translation, without 
harsh inversions. 

In the present edition, a few emendations (especially in reference to the 
aorist) have been introduced into the translation, and a few additional com- 
ments, either on the reasons for the changes,or on general principles of 
translation, inserted in the notes: see Notice to Translation of the Epp. to 
the Thessalonians. p. 132.* 

As the subject of a revision of the Authorized Version is now becoming 
more and more one of the questions of the day, I again desire to remind the 
reader that the Revised Version which follows is only one designed for the 
closet (see Pref. to Pastoral Epp. p. xvi.), and that it is in no way to be con- 
sidered as a specimen of what might be thought a desirable form of an 
authoritative Revision. The more experience I gain in the difficult task of 
revising, the more convinced am I of the utter insufficiency and hopelessness 
of any single translator’s efforts to produce a Version for general purposes. 
The individual may sometimes suggest something more or less worthy of pass- 
ing consideration, but it is from the collective wisdom of the many that we 
must alone look for any hopeful specimen of a revision of the noble Version 
at present in use. 


* ENGLISH EDITION. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 





CHAPTER I. 


Rees an apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead, 
—’*and AuL the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of 


Galatia. 


* Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and 


our Lord Jesus Christ,* who gave Himself for our sins, that He 
might deliver us out of the present evil world, according to the will 


Cuaprer I, 1. From] ‘Of. Auth. 
and the other Vy. Though it does not 
seem desirable in every case to change 
the familiar ‘of,’ of Auth. into the now 
more usual ‘from,’ it is perhaps better 
to do so in most of the cases where it is 
used as a translation of &mé: where, on 
the other hand, é« is used, ‘ of’ (‘out of’) 
will often be found a very convenient 
translation; see notes on chap. iii. 16. 
With regard to dd, it is nearly impossi- 
ble to lay down any fixed principles of 
translation: where the idea of medium 
is designed to be expressed with especial 
distinctness, we may adopt ‘through,’ 
but where this is not the case, the inclu- 
sive ‘by’ (‘agent, instrument, cause, 
means, Johnson) will be found suffi- 
ciently exact, and commonly much more 
idiomatic. 

2. Which] It may be here observed that 
archaisms, as such, are not removed from 
the Authorized Version except where 

21 


a positive error is involved. Here there 
is none; ‘which’ is not merely the neu- 
ter of ‘who,’ but is a compound word; 
Latham, Engl. Lang. § 305. 4 (ed. 3). 

3. And our] ‘And from our,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘of. 
It seems desirable to leave out the prep- 
osition in the second member, as more 
true to the original; see notes on Phil. 
i. 2 (Transl.). 

4. Out of | So Coverd. (Test.) : ‘from,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. In the 
next words it seems better to retain Auth, 
(changing ‘this’ into ‘the’), as the 
transl. ‘world of evil’ (ed. 1), though 
better preserving the unusual order of 
the Greek, might be thought to imply in 
the original the existence of a gen. of 
quality. Neither of the usual transla- 
tions, ‘ world,’ or ‘age’ (though the for- 
mer perhaps more nearly) give the exact 
meaning of aidv; the best paraphrase 
seems, ‘spirit of the age;’ see notes on 


162 GALATIANS. Cuap.I. 4.—9. 


of God and our Father: ® to whom le the glory for ever and ever. 
Amen. 

® I marvel that ye are so soon changed over from Him that 
called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel: * which 
is NOT another; save that there are some who trouble you, and 
desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ. * Howbeit even if we, or 
an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel unto you contrary 
to that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed. °* As 
we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth any 
gospel unto you contrary to that which ye received, let him be 


accursed. ™ For now am I making men my friends, or God? or 


Eph, ii. 2. God and our Father] 
Scholefield (Hints on 1 Cor. xv. 24), 
while fully admitting the reference of the 
gen. only to the latter noun, suggests the 
omission of the copula in translation 
(so Syr., Zith.) as more conformable to 
the idiom of our language. As, how- 
ever, there are several cases where the 
copula is omitted in the Greek, and 
others, as here, where it is inserted, it 
seems best, in so solemn a designation, 
to preserve the distinction by a special 
and even peculiar translation: so Vulg., 
Clarom., Copt., Arm., and Syr.-Philox. 

5. The glory] ‘Glory, Auth. As the 
art. is appy. here used kar’ éfoxhy (see 
notes), and may be inserted in this pas- 
sage without seriously violating English 
idiom, it seems best to follow here the 
usage of Auth. in Matth. vi. 13 (Rec.). 

6. Changing over| ‘Removed,’ Auth.; 
‘moved,’ Wicl.; ‘turned,’ Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘transferred,’ 
Rhem. By] So Cran.: ‘into,’ 
Auth., Wicel., Rhem.; ‘in,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Bish.; ‘unto,’ Cov. (Test.) Gen.: see 
notes. A different] ‘ Another,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

7. Save that] So Cov. (Test.): ‘but 
there be some that,’ Auth.; ‘but that there 
be some,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Cranmer, 
Gen., Bish.; ‘unless,’ Rhem. The 
present participle might at first sight seem 


to suggest the use of the auxiliary ‘are 
troubling ;’ as, however, of tapdocovtes 
is equivalent to a kind of substantive, and 
serves to mark the characteristic of the 
false teachers, the (iterative) present is 
more appropriate; comp. Latham, Engl. 
Lang., § 573 (ed. 3.). 

8. Howbeit] Similarly Cov., Bish., 
‘neuerthelesse :’ ‘ but,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vy. Even if | ‘ Though,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except /?hem., 
‘ although.’ Should preach] 
‘Preach,’ Auth. and all. the other Vy. 
The idea of future contingency involved 
in the use of éay with subj. (Herm. Viger, 
No. 312), may here be suitably expressed 
by inserting should. Any gospel, 
etc.| ‘ Any other gospel unto you than,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘ other- 
waies than,’ Gen.; ‘beside that,’ Wiel., 
Rhem. Preached] ‘ Have preached,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. 

9. Have said] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: 
‘said, Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
Preacheth| ‘ Preach,’ Auth.; change to the 
indicative to preserve the opposition of 
moods in original; see notes on 2 Thess. 
iii. 14. ( Zransi.). Any gospel, ete.] 
‘Other gospel unto you than that,’ 
Auth. Received| ‘ Have received, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., 
‘han undirfongen.’ 

10. Now am I making, etc.| ‘Do I now 


Cuap. I. 10—15. GALATIANS. 163 


am I seeking to please men? if I were sTILL pleasing men, I 
should not be a servant of Christ. 

“ Now I certify you, brethren, touching the gospel which was 
preached by me that it is not after man. ™” For neither did I re- 
ceive it from man, neither was I taught 7t, but through revelation 
from Jesus Christ. ™ For ye heard of my conversation in time 
past in Judaism, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church 
of God, and was destroying it; “ and made advance in Judaism 


beyond many my equals in mine 
ingly zealous for the traditions 


persuade men, Auwth., Bish.; Rhem.: 
‘counceil,’ Wicel.; ‘preach man’s doc- 
trine,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘ preach I men,’ Cov.; 
‘ speak fayre,’ Cov. ( Test.) ; ‘speak unto,’ 
Cran.; ‘use persuasion,’ Rhem. The 
change to the more definitely present, 
‘am I making,’ seems required by the 
emphasis which evidently rests on &prt. 
On the nature of the English present, 
comp. Latham, Engl. Lang. § 573, 579 
(ed. 3). If| So Wiel., Tynd., 
Rhem.: ‘for if,? Auth, Cran., Gen. 

Am I seeking| ‘Do I seek,’ Auth., Wicel., 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘go I about,’ 
Tynd., and the remaining Vv. 

Were still pleasing] ‘ Yet pleased,’ Auth. 
A] ‘The,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘ Christis servant.’ 

11. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Cov.; omitted 

in Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish, 
Touching the Gospel, etc.| ‘That the Gos- 
pel which was, etc. is not,’ 
Auth. Perhaps the text, which is more 
exactly in accordance with the order of 
the Greek, makes the denial a little more 
emphatic. By] ‘Of,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. 

12. Did I receive] So Rhem.: ‘TI nei- 
ther received it,’ Auth., Cov., Cran.; ‘ne 
I took it of man, ne lerned,’ Wrel.; ‘ne- 
ther received I it,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘I did 
not receive it nor learned it,’ Cov. (Test.). 
There is here some little difficulty in both 
preserving the emphasis on ‘I,’ and also 
indicating that the first negative is not 


own nation, being more exceed- 
of my fathers. “ But when it 


strictly correlative to the second. The 
insertion of the auxiliary perhaps par- 
tially effects this, as it places the ‘nei- 
ther’ a little further from the verb, and 
still leaves it in that prominence which 
it seems most naturally to occupy. In 
ed. 1 (‘for I indeed received it not’), 
this latter point was perhaps too much 
sacrificed. From man] ‘ Of man,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., | 
‘bi man.’ Through rev. from] 
‘By the rev. of,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘bi reuelacioun.’ 

13. Ye heard] ‘Ye have heard,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. Judaism] 
So Rhem.: ‘the Jews’ religion,’ Auth., 
Gen. (‘the Jewishe rel.’), Bish.; ‘the Ju- 
rie, Wicl.; ‘the Jews’ wayes,’ Tynd.; 
‘the Jewshippe,’ Cov. Was de- 
stroying it] ‘ Wasted it,’ Auth.; ‘faughte 
agen it,’ Wicl.; ‘spoyled it,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish; ‘drove them out,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘expugned it,’ Rhem. 
This change is in consequence of the 
strong meaning of ropSéw, which it seems 
desirable to maintain. To resolve also 
the other imperfects would make the 
sentence heavy and cumbrous, and add 
but little to the sense. 

14. Made advance, etc.| ‘Profited in 
(Wicl., Gen., Bish., Rhem.) the Jews’ 
religion above,’ Auth; ‘prevayled in,’ 
Tynd., Coverd., Cranmer. For] 
‘Of, Auth. 

15. Set me apart] ‘Separated me,’ 


164 GALATIANS. Cuap. I. 15—23. 


pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called 
me through His grace, * to reveal His Son within me, that I 
might preach Him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred 
not with flesh and blood: ” neither went I away to Jerusalem to 
them which were apostles before me ; but I went away into Arabia, 
and returned again unto Damascus. * Then after three years, I 
went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I tarried with him fifteen 
days. ™ But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the 
brother of the Lord. ” Now the things which I write unto you, 
behold, before God, I lie not. * Afterwards I came into the regions 
of Syria and Cilicia; ” and remained unknown by face unto the 
churches of Judzea which were in Christ: ” but they were hearing 
only That he who was our persecutor in times past is now preach- 


Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘departid me,’ and Cov. (Test.), ‘sun- 
dered me.’ The change is made to pre- 
vent ‘from’ being understood as local: 
see notes. Through| ‘By, 
Auth. and the other Vv. In this passage, 
it seems desirable to adopt the more 
rigorous translation of did, as suggesting 
more distinctly the fact that xdpis was not 
the instrument, but the ‘causa medians ;’ 
see notes. 

16. Within] ‘In, Auth., Wicl., Cov., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘by,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.); 


Cran.; ‘to,’ Gen., Rhem.: ‘heathen,’ Auth. * 
> 


and the remaining Vv. Conferred| 
So Auth. This translation is not wholly 
adequate, but it is not easy to fix upon a 
more exact one. The original word 
seems to involve two ideas, addressing 
one’s self to (pds, direction), and taking 
counsel with. Most of the older transla- 
tions give prominence to the latter and 
more important idea, e. g. ‘I commened 
not of the matter,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Genev.; some of the moderns, e. g. Meyer, 
Lewin, express more distinctly the for- 
mer. It seems difficult to combine both 
without paraphrasing. The singular 
translation in Cov. (Test.), ‘I did not 
graunt’ (comp. Rhem, ‘I condescended 
not,’), results from the Vulg. ‘ acquievi.’ 


17. Away (bis)]* ‘Up,’ Auth. In the 
concluding clause it seems better to 
maintain the order of Auth. ‘returned 
again,’ not as the Greek order might 
seem to suggest, ‘again returned’; for 
the rdaw is only idiomatically added to 
the verb, and is appy. without any special 
emphasis ; comp. Acts xviii. 21, and see 
exx.in Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. 11. 4. 4. 

18. Visit Cephas] ‘See *Peter,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vy. I tarried| 
Sim. Rhem.: ‘abode,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘ dwellid,’ 
Wicl. 

19. The brother of the Lord| Sim. 
Rhem., ‘the brother of our Lord :’ ‘the 
Lord’s brother,’ Auth. and other Vv. 
This latter mode of translation is perhaps 
more appropriate when neither substan- 
tive has the article. 

22. Remained] ‘ Was unknown,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vy. 

23. Were hearing] ‘Had heard,’ Auth., 
Cov., Rhem., Bish.; ‘hadden oonli an 
hearynge,’ Wicl.; ‘heard,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen. Conybeare and Howson have given 
a good paraphrase: ‘tidings only were 
brought them from time to time ;’ comp. 
Erasm., ‘rumor apud illos erat.’ E 
Who was our persecutor] ‘ Which perse- 
euted us,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., 


Cuap. II. 1—5. GALATIANS. 


165 


ing the faith which once he destroyed. ™ And they glorified God 
in me. 


CHAPTER II. 


THEN after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with 
Barnabas, and took Titus also with me. * And I went up by reve- 
lation, and communicated unto them the gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputa- 
tion, lest by any means I might be running, or have run, in vain. 
* Howbeit not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a 
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: * and that, because of 
the false brethren craftily brought in, men who came in stealthily 
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they 
might bring us into bondage: ° to whom we gave place by our sub- 
mission, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might 


Bish., Rhem.; ‘that pursued us,’ Wiel.; 
‘that persecuted us,’ Cov.; ‘that did per- 
secute us,’ Cov. (Test.). 

Is now preaching] ‘ Now preacheth,’ Auth, 
Tynd., Cov. (‘pr. now’), Cran., Gen., 
Bish.; ‘doth now preach,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘doth now evangelize,’ Rhem. The 
change is made to mark more definitely 
the present act ; comp. notes and ref. on 
ch. i. 10. 


CuaptTer II. 1. After fourteen years] 
So Rhem.; ‘fourteen years after,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. (Zynd., Cov., ‘after 
that ;’ Cran., ‘ thereafter’). The change 
is perhaps desirable as it slightly tends to 
prevent the last-mentioned events being 
considered as the terminus a quo of the 
fourteen years. Titus also] So 
Rhem. ‘ Titus with me also,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Gen; ‘Titus also beynge taken 
with me,’ Cov. (Test.); the rest omit xa) 
in translation. 

2. The Gospel] So all Vv. .except 
Auth., ‘that Gospel.’ Might be 
running, etc.| ‘Should (om. Wicl.) run or 
had run,’ Auth. and all Vv. The text 
seems to preserve more exactly, and per- 


haps also more grammatically, the con- 
trast between the pres. (subj.) and past 
tense. It may be observed that should 
‘simpliciter futuritionem indicat :’ might 
‘de rei possibilitate dicitur;) Wallis, 
Gram. Angl. p. 107. 

3. Howbeit not even] Sim. Cov. (Test.), 
‘neuerthelesse nother:’ ‘but neither,’ 
Auth., Rhem.: ‘and neither, Wicl.; ‘also, 
Titus ... yet, etc.’ Zynd., Cran., Gen. 
Though he was| ‘ Being,’ Auth. 

4. The false, etc.] Similarly Rhem.: 
‘false brethren unawares brought in, 
who,’ Auth.; ‘and that because of (‘ cer- 
tayne,’ Cov.) incommers beynge falce 
br.,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. Stealth- 
ily] ‘Privily,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) Cran., 
Gen., Bish; Wicl. omits ; ‘amonge other, 
Tynd., Cov.; ‘craftily,’ Rhem. Perhaps 
the change is desirable as avoiding 
repetition, and as harmonizing slightly 
better with the action described by the 
verb. 

5. By our submission} ‘By subjection,’ 
Auth., Bish; ‘to subjeccioun ;’ ‘as con- 
cerning to be brought into subjection,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran. Gen; ‘yelded not 
subjection,’ Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) omits. 


GALATIANS. 


166 Cuap, II. 6—9, 


continue with you. ° But from those who were high in reputation, 
— whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accept- 
eth no man’s person, — to me certainly they who were of reputa- 
tion communicated nothing; ‘ but contrariwise, when they saw that 
I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as 
Peter was with that of the circumcision, * (for He that wrought 
for Peter towards the apostleship of the circumcision, the same 
wrought for me also towards the Gentiles), ° and became aware 
of the grace that was given unto me, James, and Cephas, and John, 
who are accounted as pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands 
of fellowship; that we should be apostles unto the Gentiles, and 


6. From] ‘Of,’ Auth. and the other 

Vv. except Cov., ‘as to them;’ Cov. 
(Test.),‘as for them.’ The change here 
seems necessary to prevent ‘of’ being 
considered a mere sign of the gen. case. 
Were high, etc.| ‘Seemed to be some- 
what,’ Auth., Cran., and sim. Cov. (Test.); 
‘that seemed to be great,’ Cov., and sim. 
Tynd., Gen. The very slight distinction 
between doxotyres and Box. efval rt, and 
the apparent ref. to the judgment of others 
(see notes) are appy. both conveyed more 
nearly by this translation than by the 
more literal rendering of Auth. 
To me certainly, etc.| ‘For they who 
seemed to be somewhat in conference added 
nothing to me,’ Auth.; ‘added nothynge,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘taught me 
nothing,’ Cov; ‘avayled me nothing,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘dyd communicate nothing 
with me,’ Gen. 

7. I was entrusted, etc.] ‘The gospel 

. Was committed unto me as the Gos- 
pel of the circumcision was unto Peter,’ 
Auth., and sim. the other Vv. The 
change of order is made. for the sake of 
keeping the emphasis on memlorevua: 
see Meyer. Even as] ‘ As,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vy. On the translation 
of xaSdés, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5. 

8. Wrought] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘wrought effectually,’ Ath. ; 
‘was mighty,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 


Bish. The idea of effectual working, 
though to a considerable extent involved 
in évepyeiv, is perhaps scarcely sufficiently 
prominent to be expressed definitely ; see, 
however, notes on 1 Thess. ii. 13. 

For] Similarly Wicl., ‘to Peter:’ ‘in,’ 
Auth., Tynd , Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘with,’ 
Cov.; ‘by, Cov. (Test.), Gen. 

Towards] ‘To,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov., Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘in,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
Wrought] ‘Was mighty in me toward,’ 
Auth. All the other Vv. give the same 
translation to évepyéw in the second 
clause that they adopt in the first. 

9. And became aware, etc.| Similarly, 
as to order, Wicl., Tynd., Cran., Bish., 
Rhem., except that they repeat the idio- 
matic ‘ when’ in the translation of the tem- 
poral participle yvdvres, but thus slightly 
impair the natural sequence of the Yovres 

. . kal yvdvres. Auth. inverts, ‘and 
when James, Cephas, and John, who 
seemed to be,’ etc.; Cov. turns into a 
finite verb, ‘they perceived.’ 

And Cephas| Sim. Wicl., Rhem.: Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. omit ‘and. 

Are accounted as| ‘Seemed to be,’ Auth. 
and all the Vv. except Wiel., ‘weren 
seyn to be;’ Gen., ‘are taken to be.’ 
Right hands| ‘The right hands,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wiel. ‘right 
hond.’ Be apostles} So Cran., 
Bish.; ‘should go,’ Auth.; ‘that we among 


_Cuap. IT. 9—15. -GALATIANS. 


167 


they unto the circumcision. ” Only they would that we should 
remember THE POOR; which very thing I also was forward to do. 

4 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, 
because he had been condemned. ” For before that certain men 
came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles ; but when they 
came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearmg them 
which were of the circumcision. ™ And the rest of the Jews also 
dissembled with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried 
away with by their dissimulation. “ Howbeit when I saw that they 
were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I 
said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the 
manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how 7s 7 that thou 
constrainest the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews? ” WE 
truly are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; 


the hethen,’ Wiel; ‘shuld preach,’ Tynd., ing Vv. Also dissembled] ‘ Dis- 


Cov. (both), Gen.; ‘that we unto,’ Rhem. 
Gentiles] So Gen., Rhem.: ‘heathen,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

10. Which very thing] ‘The same 
which,’ Auth.; ‘the whiche thing,’ Wicl., 
Cov. Test. (‘thing also’); ‘whiche thing 
also,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘wher in also,’ 
Cran., Bish.; ‘ the which same thing also,’ 
Rthem. 

11. Cephas| * ‘ Peter,’ Auth. 

Came] So Cov. (Test.): ‘was come,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. Had 
been condemned| ‘Was to be blamed,’ 
Auth., Bish.; ‘was worthy to be blamed,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran, Gen., and similarly 
Wicl., ‘to be undirnomen ;’ ‘ was blame- 
able,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘was reprehensible,’ 
Rhem. 

12. Certain men came] ‘ Certain were 
come,’ Auth. Was eating] ‘ Did 
eat,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘ete,’ Wicl., Tynd., Gen. 

Began to, etc.| ‘ Withdrew and separated,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. The imperf. denotes the 
commencement and continuance of the 
act, or as Bengel, ‘ subducebat paullatim.’ 

13. The rest of the] So Cov. (Test.), 

Rhem.: ‘the other,’ Auth. and the remain- 


sembled likewise,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., 
Bish.: the other Vv. omit the xa) in 
translation. Even Barnabas} 
‘Barnabas also,’ Auth. By 
their| Auth. omits ‘by ;’ ‘into,’ Wicl. and 
the remaining Vv. 

14. Howbeit] ‘But,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. Were not walking] 
‘Walked not,’ Auth. Cephas| 
‘Peter,’ Auth. All] So Cov. 
(both), and sim. Wiel., Tynd , Gen., ‘all 
men :’ ‘them all,’ Auth., and the remain- 
ing Vv. How cometh it, ete | * 
‘Why compellest thou,’ Auth., and sim. 
Rhem., ‘dost thou compel;’ ‘hou con- 
streynest thou,’ Wicl.; ‘ why causest thou,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Keep the customs, etc.| ‘'To live as do the 
Jews,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘ Judaize.’ 

15. We (truly) are, etc.| Similarly 
Rhem: ‘we who are Jews by nature,’ 
Auth, Tynd, Cran., Gen.; ‘though we 
be, etc.’ Cov.; ‘we which are. . . know,’ 
Bish. This address of St Paul to St. 
Peter involves so many difficulties both 
in meaning and connection, that it will 
be perhaps best to subjoin a free para- 


168 


GALATIANS. 


Cuap. Il. 15—17. 


* but as we know that a man is not justified by the works of the 
law, save only through faith in Jesus Christ, — we too believed in 
Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not 
by the works of the law; since by the works of the law shall no 


flesh be justified. 


” But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, 


we are found ourselves also to be sinners, zs. Christ therefore a 


phrase of the whole. ‘We, I concede, 
are by birth Jews, not Gentiles, and con- 
sequently, from our point of view, sin- 
ners; but as we know that a man is not 
justified by the works of the law, in fact 
is not justified at all, except through faith 
in Christ ;— even we, with all our privi- 
leges, believed in and into Christ, that 
we might be justified, etc. But what, if, 
while we are seeking to be justified in 
Christ, the result show that we, with all 
our privileges, are sinners like the Gen- 
tiles ; is Christ the minister of a dispen- 
sation that after all only leads to sin? 
God forbid! For if I (or you) build up 
again the system I pulled down, and set 
up nothing better in its place, it is thus, 
and not in seeking to be justified in 
Christ, that I show myself (vox horren- 
da!) a transgressor of the law; yes, a 
violator of its deeper principles. For I 
(to adduce a proof from my own spiritual 
_ experience) through the medium of the 
law, and in accordance with its higher 
principles, died unto it in regard to its 
claims and its curse: I have been and 
am crucified with Christ. Though I live 
then, it is no longer as my old self, but 
as reanimated by Christ; yes, the life 
which now I live, this earthly, mundane 
life, I live in the element of faith in Christ, 
who so loved me that He gave His own 
life for me. Thus I do not, like these 
Judaists, regard the grace of God as a 
principle that could be dispensed with; 
for if, as they pretend, the law is suffi- 
cient to make men righteous, the obvious 
inference is, there was no object in the 
death of Christ. 

16. But as we know] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth., 


Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘we which 
...knowe,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish; 
‘ yet insomuche as we knowe,’ Cov. 

Save only through, etc.| ‘But by the faith 
of Jesus Christ,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Cov., ‘on J. C.;’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘save by the faith by J. C.’ We 
too believed| ‘Even we have believed in 
J. C.,’ Auth; ‘and we bileuen,’ Wiel.; 
‘we have believed also,’ Cov.; ‘we also 
beleue,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘and we 
have bel. on,’ Cran., Bish., Tynd; (‘and 
therfor’) ‘even we I say have bel. in,’ 
Gen. Faith in| ‘ The faith of, 
Auth. and all Vv. Since] ‘ For, 
Auth.; ‘because that,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Gen.; ‘wherfor,’ Wicl.; ‘because,’ 
Bish.; ‘ for the which cause,’ Rhem. 

17. In Christ] So Wicl., Cov, (Test.), 
Rhem.; ‘by Christ,’ Auth. and remaining 
Vv. We are found, etc.| ‘We 
ourselves also are found sinners,’ Auth. 
English idiom here, in consequence of 
the union with the pres. part., seems to 
require the pres. ‘are found” as the 
translation of ebpéSnv. The aorist in the 
original has an idiomatic reference-to a 
discovery past and done with, and about 
which no more need be said, which can- 
not be expressed without paraphrase; 
comp. Donalds. Gr. § 433. Is 
Christ, etc.] ‘Is therefore Christ the,’ 
Auth. God forbid] Auth. and 
all Vy. except Cov. ( Test.), ‘that be farre.’ 
On reconsideration it would seem best, 
and even practically most exact, that in 
a passage of the present nature, where 
the revulsion of feeling and thought is 
very decided, to retain the familiar and 
idiomatic translation of Auth. 


Cuap., III. 1, 2. GALATIANS. 


169 


minister of sin? God forbid! % For if the things that I destroyed 
THESE again I build up, I prove myself a transgressor. ” For I 
through the law died to the law, that I might live unto God. I 
have been crucified with Christ: it is, however, no longer I that 
live, but Christ liveth in me; yea the life which now I live in the 
flesh I live in faith, — faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and 
gave Himself for me. * I do not make void the grace of God ; for 


if righteousness come THROUGH THE LAW, then for nought did Christ 
die. 


CHAPTER III. 


O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes 
Jesus Christ was evidently set forth among you, cRUCIFIED. * This 
only would I learn of you, Was it by the works of the law that ye 


18. The things that I destroyed] ‘1 
build again the things which I destroyed,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘that which,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Gen.; ‘the same things againe 
which,’ Rhem. The inversion, though 
involving a slight irregularity in struc- 
ture, seems here needed, as serving both 
to keep the emphasis on the right words, 
and to exhibit the true point of the argu- 
ment. Prove myself| ‘Make 
myself,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 

19. Died] ‘Am dead,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Cran., ‘haue bene deed.’ 

20. Have been crucified] ‘Am cruci- 
fied,’ Auth., and sim., as to the auxiliary, 
all the other Vv. Of the two modes of 
expressing the Greek perfect (‘am’ and 
‘have been’), the latter seems here most 
appropriate, as the associated aor. ren- 
ders the ref. to past time more prominent 
than one to present effects ; see notes on 
Col. i. 16 ( Transl.). It is, how- 
ever, etc.] ‘Nevertheless I live; yet not 
I,’ Auth., sim. Cov . Cran.; ‘I live verely, 
yet now not I,’ Tynd, Gen. Yea| 
‘And,’ Auth., Gen, Cran., Bish., Rhem.; 
‘for’ Tynd., Cov; ‘but,’ Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.). Now I] ‘I now,’ Auth. 

22 


In faith, etc.] ‘ By (‘in,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), 
Rhem.), the faith of, Auth., Tynd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish. 

21. Make void] ‘Frustrate,’ Auth. ; 
‘cast not awei,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; 
‘despyse not,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘do not ab- 
rogate,’ Gen; ‘reject not,’ Bish. 
Through] So Wicl.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cov. 
(both), Rhem.; ‘of, Tynd., Gen., Cran., 
Bish. For nought| ‘In vain,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem ; 
‘without cause,’ Wicl., Gen. (‘a cause.’) 
Did Christ die| ‘ Christ is dead,’ Auth., 
Bish.; ‘died,’ Wicl., and the remaining 
Vy. The slight change in the text 
seems to give the due prominence to 
dwpedy, and also to preserve a better 
rhythm than the unresolved ‘ died.’ 


CHapTer III. 1. Did bewitch| ‘Hath 
bewitched, Auth. and the other Vy. 
* Auth inserts after ‘you,’ ‘ that ye should 
not obey the truth.’ 

2. Was it, ete.] Similarly Rhem., ‘by 
the workes of the law did you receiue :’ 
‘received ye the Spirit by the,’ ete. Auth., 
and sim. as to order all the remaining 
Vv. 


170 GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 8—10. 


received the Spirit, or by the hearing of faith? * Are ye so very 
foolish ? having begun with the Spirit are ye now being made per- 
fect with the flesh? * Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if 
indeed it really be in vain. * He then, I say, that ministereth to 
you the Spirit and worketh mighty powers within you, doeth he it 


by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith ? 
® Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him 


for righteousness. 


‘Know ye then that THEY WHICH ARE OF 
FAITH, the same are the sons of Abraham. 


® Moreover the Scrip- 


ture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by FAITH, pro- 
claimed beforehand the glad tidings unto Abraham, saying, In thee 


shall all the nations BE BLESSED. 


* So then they which be of faith 


are blessed together with the faithful Abraham. 
” For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse: 


3. So very] ‘So,’ Auth. and the other 

Vv. except Cov., ‘ such fooles.’ 
Begun with| So Rhem.: ‘begun in’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘by.’ 
Being made perfect with| ‘Made perfect 
by, Auth., Genev. (‘in’); ‘ben ended,’ 
Wicel.; ‘nowe ende,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.); 
‘ende now then,’ Cov. ‘ende in,’ Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘be consummate with,’ Rhem. 

4. Did ye suffer| ‘Have ye suffered,’ 

Auth., Cov. (both), Bish, Rhem., and 
sim. the other Vv., except that they do 
not adopt the interrogative form. 
Indeed it really be| ‘It be yet;’ Auth., 
Bish.; ‘if that be vayne,’ Tynd., Gen,; 
‘yf it be also in vayne,’ Cran.; ‘if yet 
without cause,’ Rhem. 

5. He then, etc.| ‘ He therefore,’ Auth., 
Cov. (Test ), Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘more- 
over, he, etc.,’ Cran.; Wicl., Tynd., Cov. 
omit ody in translation. Mighty 
powers, etc.| ‘Miracles among you,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘vertues in you; Cov., ‘ great actes.’ 

7. Then| ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Cov., ‘thus I know,’ 
and Gen., ‘so ye know.’ The only other 
version that takes ykw@onere indicatively 
is that of Cranmer. Sons] So 


Wicl.: ‘children,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. 

8. Moreover] ‘ And,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘for,’ Tynd. and remain- 
ing Vv. (Cov. omits). Justifieth| 
So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘would 
justify,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen ; ‘jus- 
tifyed,’ Cov. The Gentiles] So 
Gen., Rhem.: ‘the heathen,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vy. By faith} 
So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and sim. Wicl., 
‘of faith ’ ‘through faith,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. Proclaimed be- 
forehand, etc.| Sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran.: 
‘preached before the Gospel,’ Auth., Gen. 
(‘before hand’); ‘told to for,’ Wicl.; 
‘told,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘shewed. . . before,’ 
Rhem. All the nations] Sim. 
Wicl., Cov., ‘alle the hethen:’ ‘all na- 
tions,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. ex- 
cept Gen., ‘all the Gentiles. The change 
in the translation of 7a Svn in the same 
verse seems required by a kind of chron- 
ological propriety. 

9. Together with] ‘ With,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. The faithful] 
So Bish., Rhem.: ‘faithful,’ Auth. and 
all the remaining Vy. 

10. Curse] So Wicl., Rhem., and sim- 


Cuap. III. 11—17. GALATIANS. 


171 


for it is written, Cursed zs every one that continueth not in all 
things which are written in the book of the law to do them. ™ But 
further, that in the law no man is justified in the sight of God, zt is 
evident ; because, The just shall live by FairH. ” Now the law is 
not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them..... 
® Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become A 
cuRSsE for us,— because it is written, Cursed 7s every one that 
hangeth on a tree, —™ that unto the Gentiles the blessing of Abra- 
ham might come in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the prom- 
ise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH. 

% Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but 
@ MAN’S covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no man annul- 
leth it, or addeth new conditions. ‘ Now to Abraham were the 
promises made, AND TO HIS SEED. He saith not, And to seeds, 
as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 
7 Now this I say, A covenant, that hath been before confirmed by 


ilarly Tynd., ‘under malediccion :’ ‘ the 
curse,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., 
Bish. 

11. But further, etc.] ‘But that no man 
is justified by the law,’ Auth. Be- 
cause] So Rhem.: ‘for,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. 

12. Now] ‘And,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Gen., Bish.; Tynd., Cov., Cran., omit ; 
‘but,’ Wiel. Rhem. He\ * 
‘The man,’ Auth. 

13. Redeemed] Similarly Wicl., ‘ agen- 
bought :’ ‘hath redeemed,’ Awh. and the 
remaining Vy. except Cov., ‘hath de- 
lyuered.’ Having become] ‘ Be- 
ing made,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; ‘and was 
made,’ Wicl., Tynd.; ‘when he became,’ 
Cov; ‘beynge become,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘inasmoch as he was made,’ Cran. ; 
‘when he was made,’ Gen, Be- 
cause] So Rhem: ‘ for, Auth. and the re- 
maining Vv. 

14. Unto the Gentiles] ‘Come on the 
Gentiles,’ Auth. In Christ J. 
‘Through *J. C.,’ Auth. Tynd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish.; ‘in,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), 
Rhem. 


15. Yet when it hath been] ‘Yet if it 
be,’ Auth. The temporal translation in 
the text is adopted by Tynd., Cov.; the 
hypothetical by Auth. with Cran., Bish.: 
the remaining Vy. adopt purely particip- 
ial translations. Annulleth it, etc.] 
‘Disannulleth or addeth thereto,’ Auth., 
Bish.; ‘ ordeyneth above,’ Wiel ; ‘addeth 
anything thereto,’ Tynd. Cov. (sim. Test.), 
Cran., Gen.; ‘further disposeth,’ Rhem. 

16. Were the promises, ete.| Sim. Rhem., 
Wicl.: ‘and his seed were the promises,’ 
etc., Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

17. Now this] ‘ And this,’ Auth., Gen., 
Rhem.; ‘but,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test); Tynd., 
Cov., Bish., omit 5¢. The translation of 
8¢ is here somewhat difficult. Though 
‘now’ has just preceded, it must appy. 
be adopted again as the only translation 
which seems to preserve the resumptive 
force. A covenant] ‘ The cove- 
nant,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl and Cov. (both), ‘this.’ 

Hath been before confirmed| ‘Was con- 
firmed before,’ Auth., Tynd , Cov., Cran., 
Gen; ‘was given,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ the 
test. being confirmed,’ Rhem.; Wicl., 


172 GALATIANS. Crap. III. 17—23. 


God [for Christ], the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, doth not invalidate, that it should make void the promise. 
8 For if the inheritance be of the law, it 7s no more of promise: 
but to Abraham God hath freely given it THROUGH PROMISE. 

19 What then is the object of the law? It was added because of 
the transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise 
hath been made; and was ordained by means of angels, in the 
hand of a mediator. ™ Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, 
but God is one. ‘ Js the law then against the promises of Gop? 
God forbid! for if there had been given a law which could have 
given life, verily by the law would righteousness have come. 
” But, on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin, that 
the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that 


believe. 


wholly inverts. By God, ete.] 
‘Of God in Christ,’ Auth. Doth 
not, etc.| Sim. Tynd., Cran., Bish.: ‘can- 
not disannul,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘makith not 
veyn, Weel; ‘is not disannulled,’ Cov.; 
‘makith not void, Rhem.; Cov. (Test.), 
confuses. Make void| Similarly 
Wicl. (‘to avoide away’) and Cov. (Test.): 
‘make the promise of none effect,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘to frus- 
trate,’ Rhem. 

18. But to Abraham, etc.| ‘But God 
gave it to Abraham by promise,’ Auth, and 
the other Vv. except Cov., ‘ gave freely ;’ 
Wicl., ‘ grauntide.’ Through| 
‘By,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 

19. What then, etc.| ‘Wherefore then 
serveth,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (sim. Test.), 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘what thanne the law,’ 

Wicl.; ‘why was the law then,’ Rhem. 
The transgressions] Auth. and all the other 
Vy. omit the article; in a passage, how- 
ever, of this dogmatical importance, it 
ought appy. to be retained. Hath 
been made] ‘Was made,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen.; ‘He hadde made beheest,’ 
Wicl.; ‘He had promised,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. And was] ‘ And it was,’ 
Auth. By means of | ‘ By,’ Auth. 


* Now before that faith came, we were kept in ward 


and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘of an- 
gels.’ 7 

21. Given a law] ‘ A law given,’ Auth. 
Verily by tht, etc.] ‘ Verily ( Wiel.) right- 
eousness should have been by the law,’ 
Auth.; ‘then no doute,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen., Bish.; ‘shuld have come,’ Tynd., 
Gen. 

22. But on the contrary] ‘But,’ Auth, 

and all the other Vv. The addition of 
the words ‘‘on the contrary” seem here 
required in translation to preserve the 
true force of &AAd, and to show clearly 
the nature of the reasoning. 
Shut up all] Similarly, as to the omission 
of ‘hath,’ Tynd., Cran., ‘concluded all 
things :’ ‘hath concluded all, Auth., Bish.; 
‘hath concluded all things,’ Wicl., Gen., 
Rhem. Faith in] ‘Faith of, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., 
‘faith on.’ 

23. Now] ‘But,’ Auth. and the other 
Vy.except Wiel.,‘and;’ Tynd. and Cov. 
omit. Before that] So Tynd., 
Cran., and similarly Wiel., ‘to for that;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘afore that:’ ‘before,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Kept 
in ward, etc.| ‘Kept under the law shut 
up, Auth.; ‘kept under the lawe, en- 


Cuap. IIT. 23—29. 


GALATIANS. 


173 


shut up under the law for the faith which afterwards was to be 


revealed. 


4 So then the law hath been our schoolmaster unto 


Christ, that we may be justified BY FAITH. 
» But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a school- 


master. 
Jesus. 
Christ. 


*° For ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ 
% For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on 
* There is among such neither Jew nor Greek, there is 


neither bond nor free, there is no male and female: for ye all are 


one in Christ Jesus. 


* But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye ABRA- 


HAM’S SEED, heirs according to promise. 


closid,’ Wicl.; ‘kept and shut up, etc.,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘kept under the law 
and were shut up,’ Cran., Bish. 

For] ‘ Unto,’ Auth. Afterwards 
was, etc.| ‘Which should aft. be rev.,’ 
Auth., Gen., Bish.; sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran. (‘be declared ’). 

24. Sothen] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘and so,’ Wicel.; 
‘thus,’ Cov.; ‘therefore,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. Hath been our school- 
master unto] ‘Was our schoolmaster to 
bring us unto,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘undir mais- 
ter in Christ,’ Wicl.; ‘scolemaster unto 
the time of,’ Tynd.; ‘scolemaster unto,’ 
Cov. (both), Cran., Bish.; ‘pedag. in,’ 
Rhem. There is much difficulty in fix- 
ing on the most suitable translation of 
this word. The term ‘schoolmaster’ 
certainly tends to introduce an idea (that 
of teaching) not in the original and also 
serves to obscure the idea of custodia 
(‘ custos incorruptissimus,’ Hor. Sat. 1. 6. 
" 81), which seems the prevailing one of 
the passage. Still as the same objection 
applies in a greater or less degree to 
‘pedagogue’ (ed. 1) and ‘tutor,’ it will 
be perhaps better, in so familiar a pas- 
sage, to return to Auth, May 


be] ‘ Might be,’ Auth.: change to preserve 
what is called the succession of tenses, 
Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616 (ed. 3). 

25. Now that] ‘So Cov.: ‘after that,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. 
(Test.), ‘whan the fayth did come;’ 
Rhem., ‘ when the faith came.’ 

26. Sons] So Tynd., Gen.: Auth. and 
the remaining Vv., ‘ the children.’ 
Through the faith] ‘ By faith, Auth., Gen., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘thorugh bileue,’ Wicel.; 
‘by the fayth which is in,’ Tynd., Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘because ye believe in,’ Cran. 

27. Were baptized] ‘Have been bap- 
tized,’ Auth.; ‘are baptized,’ T’ynd. ( Wicl., 
‘ben’) and all the remaining Vv. 

Put on] ‘Have put on,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ben clothid.’ 

28. There is among such, etc.| ‘There 
is neither, etc.,’ Auth. No male 
and female] ‘Neither male nor female,’ 
Auth. None of the other Vv. seem to 
have marked the change. All 
are] ‘ Are all,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Rhem., ‘al you are.’ 

29. But] So Cov. (Test.): ‘and,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Rhem. The rest omit the 
particle. Heirs] So Rhem.: * 
‘and heirs,’ Auth. 


GALATIANS. 


174 Cuap. IV. 1—8. 


CHAPTER IV 


Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth in 
nothing from a bond-servant, though he be lord of all; ? but is 
under guardians and stewards until the time appointed of the father. 
* Even so we, when we were children, were kept in bondage under 
the rudiments of the world: * but when the fulness of the time 
came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the 
law, ° that He might redeem them that were under the law, that 
we might receive the adoption of sons. ° And to show that ye ARE 
sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 


et ies 


Abba Father. 


"So then thou art no more a servant, but a son; 


and if a son, an heir also through God. 
® Howbeit, at that time, truly, not knowing God, ye were in 


CuarterR IV. 1. In nothing] ‘ Noth- 
ing, Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test), Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘ differeth not,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen; 
‘there is no diff.,’ Cov. Bond- 
servant| ‘Servant,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vy. It seems desirable to keep up the 
idea of ‘bondage’ and ‘slavery’ which 
pervades the whole simile. 

2. Guardians] ‘ Tutors,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘kepers ;’ Cov., 
‘rulers.’ It seems desirable to make a 
change in translation to preserve a dis- 
tinction between érirpomos here and mai- 
daywyds in the preceding chapter. 
Stewards| ‘Governors, Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘kepers and 
tutores.’ 

3. Kept in bondage] ‘ Were in bondage 
under,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wicel., ‘serueden undir;’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘ were seruynge under.’ 
Rudiments} So Gen., Bish.: ‘elements,’ 
Auth., Wicl , Rhem.; ‘ ordinances,’ Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘tradicions,’ Cov. (both). 

4. Cume] So Wicel., Rhem.: ‘ was come,’ 
Auth. and sim. the remaining Vv. 

Born ...born| ‘Made... made, Auth., 
Wicl., Rhem., Bish. (‘and made under’) ; 
‘born... made bonde unto,’ Tynd., Cran.; 
‘borne and put under,’ Cov.; ‘made... 


made bonde unto,’ Gen. The meaning 
preferred by Scholef. (Hints, p. 96), 
‘made subject to the law,’ involves a 
change of meaning in yevduevov, which 
does not appear necessary or natural. 

5. That he might] So Rhem., and sim. 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘to redeem,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Here as in ch. 
iii. 14 it seems most exact to indicate the 
repeated iva by the same form of trans- 
lation. 

6. To show that] ‘ Because,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘for ye ben ;’ 
Cov., ‘forsomuche then as.’ 

Sent forth] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
‘sente:’ ‘hath sent forth,’ Auth; ‘hath 
sent,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem.; ‘hath 
sent out,’ Gen. Our hearts} 
‘* Your hearts,’ Auth. ’ 

7. So then] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth., Gen., 
Bish.; ‘and so,’ Wicl.; ‘wherefore now,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘therefore,’ Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. An heir, etc.] 
‘Then an heir * of God through Christ,’ 
Auth. 

8. At that time, ete.| ‘Then when ye 
know (sic in Bagst.) not,’ Auth.; ‘ thanne 
ye unknowynge,’ Wicl.; ‘when ye knewe 
not,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘but then truely not knowynge,’ Cov. 


Cuap. IV. 8—15. GALATIANS. 


175 


bondage to them which by nature are not gods. ° But now that 
ye have come to know God, or rather have been known by God, 
how is a that ye turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudi- 
ments, whereunto ye desire to be again anew in bondage. ” Ye 
are carefully observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. 
IT am apprehensive of you, lest haply I have bestowed upon you 
labor in vain. 

” Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have 
become as ye are. Ye injured me in nothing: ” yea ye know 
that it was on account of weakness of my flesh that I preached the 
gospel unto you the first time; “ and your temptation in my flesh 
ye despised not, nor loathed, but received me as an angel of God, 


yea as Christ Jesus. 


(Test.) ; ‘then in deede knowing,’ Rhem. 
The change in the translation of rére is 
to prevent ‘then’ being mistaken for the 
inferential particle. Were in bond- 
age] ‘ Ye did service,’ Auth. Not 
gods| *‘ No gods,’ Auth. 

9. Now that ye have come to know] 
‘Now, after that ye have known,’ Auth. 
Have been known] ‘ Are known,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Gen., ‘are 
taught.’ By God| ‘Of God,’ 
Auth., and all the other Vv. How 
is it that] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.: 
‘how,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., 
Rhem. Ye turn back] So Cov.: 
‘turn ye,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Gen., ‘are turned backward unto.’ 
Rudiments| So Bish.: ‘elements,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Rhem.; ‘ cerimonies,’ Tynd., Gen.; 
‘tradicions,’ Cov. (both); ‘ordinaunces,’ 
Cran. Again anew| Sim, Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish., ‘againe afresshe :’ 
‘again,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; ‘as from the begynnyng ye wil 
be in bondage backwardly,’ Gen. 

10. Carefully observing] ‘ Observe,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., 
‘taken kepe to.’ Seasons] ‘' Times, 
Auth. and all the other Vy. 

11. Am apprehensive] ‘Am afraid,’ 
Auth; ‘I drede, Wicl.; ‘am in feare of,’ 


* Of what nature then was the boasting of 


Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘feare 
me,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘fear,’ Rhem. 

12. Become as, etc.| ‘Be as I am; for 
I am as ye are: ye have not injured me 
at all, Auth., Bish.; ‘ye have not hurte 
me at all,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 

13. Yea ye know, etc.| ‘Ye know how 
through infirmity, etc.,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Ihem., ‘bi in- 
firmyte;’ Cov., ‘in weakness.’ The 
slight changes made by substituting the 
simpler word ‘ weakness’ for ‘infirmity,’ 
and ‘my’ for ‘the,’ seem to make the 
reference of the Apostle to some bodily 
affliction or illness slightly more appar- 
ent. The first time] ‘ At the first,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘now bifor ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘a whyle ago ’ 
this translation leaves the meaning am- 
biguous ; see notes. 

14. Your] *‘My,’ Auth.; see notes. 
In my flesh] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; ‘which was,’ Auth., Cran. Gen., 
Bish., and sim. Tynd. Loathed| 
‘Rejected,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘forsaken,’ 
Wicl.; ‘abhorred,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. Yea] So Tynd., Cov. 
(Test.), Gen.: ‘even,’ Auth., Cov., Cran., 
Bish.; Wicl., Rhem. omit. 

15. Of what nature, etc.] ‘ Where* is 
then the blessedness ye spake of,’ Auth.; 


Cuap. IV. 15—24. 


176 GALATIANS. 


your blessedness ? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possi- 
ble, ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to 
me. “So then, am I become your enemy, by speaking to you the 
truth ? 

“They pay you court in no honest way; yea, they desire to 
exclude you, that ye may pay THEM court. ™ But 7t is good to be 
courted in honesty AT ALL TIMES, and not only when I am present 
with you... ™ My little children, of whom I am again in travail, 
until Christ be formed in you, ” I could indeed wish to be present 
with you now, and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about 
you. 

” Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the 
law? ™ For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; one by the 
bond-maid, and one by the free-woman. ™ Howheit, he who was 
of the bond-maid was born after the flesh; but he of the free-maid 
was through the promise. ™ All which things are allegorical; for 


‘your blessynge,’? Wicl.; ‘how happy 
were ye then,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘your hap- 
pynesse,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘your felicitie,’ 
Cran., Bish.; ‘ boasting of your fel.,’ Gen.; 
‘your blessedness,’ hem. Your| 
So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘your 
own,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

16. So then] ‘Am I therefore, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., 
‘thanne.’ By speaking] ‘ Because 
I tell,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘seiynge;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘telling.’ 

17. Pay you court, ete.] ‘Zealously 
affect you, but not well,’ Auth.; ‘gelous 
over you amysse,’ Tynd. and other Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘louen you not well;’ 
Rhem., ‘emulate.’ Desis- to] 
‘Would,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov., Rhem.; 
‘intende to,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘wyll,’ Cov. (Test.). May pay 
them court] ‘ Might affect them,’ Auth. 

18. Yo be courted, etc.| ‘To be zeal- 
ously affected always in a good thing,’ 
Auth.; ‘to be fervent,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; 
‘to love earnestly,’ Gen.; ‘to be zelous,’ 


Bish. 


19. Am again] ‘ Travail in birth again, 
Auth. 

20. LI could indeed wish] ‘I desire,’ 
Auth.; ‘but I desire,’ Bish.; ‘I wolde I 
were,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., and 
similarly the remaining Vy. Tone] 
‘Voice,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Am perplexed, etc.| ‘I stand in doubt of 
you,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish ; ‘am ashamed of you,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘am confoundid, Weel., 
Rhem. 

22. One—and one] So Wiel., Rhem.: 
‘the one — the other,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vy. except Cov. (Test.), ‘the 
one—and one.’ The bond-maid 
.... the free-woman| Sim. Rhem,: ‘A 
bond-maid ... a free-woman,’ Auth., and 
sim. the remaining Vv. 

23. Howbeit] ‘ But,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘yee and,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen.; Cov. omits. Bond-maid} 
‘Bond-woman,’ Auth. Through} 
‘By,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vv. 
except Cov. (Test.),; ‘after.’ 

24. All which, etc.] ‘ Which things are 
an allegory,’ Auth.; ‘ben seide bi anothir 


Cuarp. IV. 24—31. GALATIANS. 


177 


these women are two covenants,— the one from Mount Sinai, 
bearing children unto bondage ; and this is Agar. ~ For the word 
Agar signifieth in Arabia Mount Sinai; —and she ranketh with 
Jerusalem which now is, for she is in bondage with her children. 
*6 But Jerusalem which is above is free, AND SHE is our mother. 
7 For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not; break 
forth and ery, thou that travailest not: for many children hath the 
desolate one more than she which hath an husband. * But ye, 
brethren, as Isaac was, are children of proMIsE. ™* Still as then, he 
that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the 
Spirit, even so ztzs now. ™ Nevertheless what saith the scripture ? 
Cast out the bond-maid and her son: for the son of the bond-maid 
shall in no wise BE HEIR with the son of the free-woman.. * Where- 
fore, brethren, we are not children of a bond-maid, but of the free- 


woman. 


understondinge,’ Wicl.; ‘betoken mys- 
tery,’ Tynd.; ‘betoken somewhat,’ Cov.; 
‘are spoken by an allegory,’ Cran., and 
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘by the which 
thinges another thing is ment,’ Gen., 
Bish. Two| *‘The two,’ Auth. 
These women| So Tynd., Cov.; ‘these,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
Gen., ‘these mothers.’ Bearing 
children, ete.| ‘ Which gendereth to,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., 
‘gendrynge;’ Cov. ('Test.), ‘engendrynge.’ 
And this] ‘ Which,’ Auth. 

25. The word, etc.| ‘This Agar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia,’ Auth., Bish. 
(‘the mount’); ‘for mounte S. is called 
A. in Arab.,’ Tynd.; ‘for Agar is called 
in Arabia the Mount Sin.,’ Cov.; ‘for 
Sin. is a mountaine in Ar.,’ Gen., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. Ranketh with] 
‘ Answereth to,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘is joyned 
to it,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘bordereth 
upon,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. (see notes) ; 
‘reacheth unto,’ Cov.; ‘hath affinitie 
to,’ Rhem. For she] ** And she,’ 
Auth. 

26. And she, etc.] 
mother of us all,’ Auth, 


‘Which is the 


23 


Cuap. V. Stand fast then in the liberty for which 


27. For many more, etc.]| Sim. Rhem.: 
‘for the desolate hath many more chil- 
dren than she which hath,’ Auth. 

An husband| So Auth. and all the other 
Vv. Idiom seems to require this less 
accurate translation. 

28. But ye] ‘Now * we,’ Auth. 
Children] So Tynd., Gen.: ‘the children,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘sones.’ 

29. Still] ‘But,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. 

80. Bond-maid (bis)] ‘Bondwoman,’ 
Auth. Shall in no wise] So Bish. 
(ed. 2): ‘shall not,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. This seems one of the cases 
in which we may pres8 the translation 
of ob wh: see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15. 

31. Wherefore] * ‘So then,’ Auth. 
A bond-maid| ‘The bondwoman,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vy. Free-woman] 
‘Free,’ Auth. 


Cuarter V. 1. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., 
Rhem., which omit. For which) 
‘Wherewith, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish: 
Wicl., Gen., follow different readings. 


178 GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 1—7, 


Christ made us free, and be not held fast again i a yoke of 
bondage. : 

* Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, CHRIST 
will profit you nothing. * Yea I testify again to every man who 
has himself circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE law. 
* Ye have been done away with from Christ, whosoever of you are 
being justified in the law; ye are fallen away from grace. * For 
we, by the Spirit, are tarrying for the hope of righteousness from 
faith. ° For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, 


nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. 
‘ Ye were running well; who did hinder you that ye should not 


Made us] ‘ Hath made,’ Auth, Held 
Just, etc.] ‘Entangled again with a, Auth., 
‘wrappe not yourselves in the,’ Tynd., 
Cran.,and sim. Cov., Gen.; ‘be not holden 
with (in the,’ Wicl.), Cov. (Test.) Rhem. 

2. Will] ‘Shall,’ Auth. and the other 
Vy. except Cov. (present) ; simple predi- 
cation of result: ‘in primis personis shall 
simpliciter preedicentis est, will quasi 
promittentis aut minantis; in secundis 
et tertiis personis shall promittentis est 
aut minantis, will simpliciter preedicen- 
tis,’ Wallis, Gr. Angl. p. 106. 

3. Yea] ‘For, Auth., Gen., Bish.; 
‘and,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Tynd., 
Cov., Cran. omit. Who has him- 
self, etc.| ‘That is circumcised,’ Auth., 
and similarly Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish.; ‘circumcidith hym silf,’ Wicel.; 
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

4. Ye have, etc.| ‘ Christ is become of 
no effect unto you,’ Auth.; ‘and ye ben 
voidid aweie fro,’ Wicl.; ‘are gone quyte 
from,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ‘Christ is be- 
come but in veyne unto,’ Cran., Bish. ; 
‘are evacuated from, Rhem. Here idiom 
seems to require the English perfect: 
the pure aoristic translation, ‘ye were 
done away with from Christ,’ stands in 
too marked a contrast with the following 
present, and to the English reader too 
completely transfers the action to what 
is purely past; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 


16 (Transl.). 
‘Are justified,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Cov., ‘wyll be made ryghteous ;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘are made ryghteous.’ 

In the] So Wicel., Rhem.: ‘in the,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Fallen 
away| ‘Fallen,’ Auth. 

5. By the Spirit, etc.| ‘Through the 
Spirit wait for the hope of right, by faith,’ 
Auth., Bish.; ‘we loke for and hope in the 
sprite to be justified thorow,’ Tynd.,Cran.; 
‘in the sprite of hope to be made ryght- 
uous by faith,’ Cov.; ‘in sprite by faythe 
we wayte for,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘we wayt 
for (by the Spirit through faith) the hope 
of,’ Gen. Are tarrying for] ‘Wait 
for,’ Auth. Cov. (Test.), Gen. Bish.; 
‘abiden,’ Wicl.; ‘loke for,’ Tynd., Cran.; 
‘wayte,’ Cov.; ‘expect,’ Rhem. 

6. Working] ‘Which worketh,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., 
‘that worketh ;? Cov., ‘which by loue is 
mighty.’ The practice of inserting the 
relative before the anarthrous participle, 
even when idiom can scarcely be urged in 
its favor, is an inaccuracy that is not un- 
commonly found in the older Vy. Per- 
haps even in Eph. ii. 1, Col. ii. 13, it might 
seem better to adopt the concessive trans- 
lation, ‘ though, etc.’: see, however, notes 
in loce. ( Transl.). Through] ‘By, 
Auth, and all the other Vy. 

7. Were running] ‘Did run,’ Auth., 


Are being justified] — 


long 


Cuar. V. 8—16. GALATIANS. 


179 


obey the truth? * The persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth 
you. ° A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I, for my 
part, have confidence in you in the Lord, that ye will be none 
otherwise minded ; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judg- 
ment, whosoever he be. ™ But I, brethren, if I still preach crr- 
CUMCISION, why do I still suffer persecution? then is the offence 
of the cross done away with. ™ I would that they who are unset- 
tlng you would even cut themselves off from you. 

® For ye were called unto liberty, brethren; only use not your 
liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by your love serve one 
another. ™ For the whole law is fulfilled in one saying, even in 
this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ” But if ye bite and 
devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of 
another. . 


*© Now I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye shall in no wise fulfil 


Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘run- 
nen,’ Wicl.; ‘ranne,’ Cov. (both), Rhem. 

8. The] Cran., Rhem.; ‘this,’ Wicel., 
Auth., Cov. (Test), Gen.; ‘that,’ Tynd.; 
‘such,’ Cov. That calleth| So rightly 
Auth.: not ‘called, Tynd., Gen., or ‘is 
calling,” as the iterative force involved 
in the English present more nearly ap- 
proaches to the idiomatic use of the par- 
ticiple than either the past tense or the 
resolved present; comp. notes on Phil. 
iii. 14, (Trans/.), and Latham, Engl. 
Lang. § 578 (ed. 3). 

10. I for my part] ‘I,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. In] So the 
other Vv. except Auth., Gen., ‘through 
the.’ 

11. But I] So Cov. (Test.): ‘and I,’ 
Auth. Still (bis)] ‘Yet,’ Auth. 
Done away with| ‘ Ceased,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ voidid ;? Rhem., 
‘evacuated.’ 

12. Are unsettling] ‘ Trouble,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘dis- 
turblen ;’ Gen., ‘do disquiet.’ 

Would even, etc.| ‘I would they were even 
cut off which trouble you,’ Auth. and 
similarly Rhem.; ‘kutte aweie,’ Wicl., Cov. 


(Test.); ‘were seperated,’ Tynd., Cran.; 
‘were roted out,’ Cov.; ‘were cut off 
from you,’ Gen. 

13. For ye, ete.] ‘For brethren ye 
have been,’ etc., Auth, and sim. all the 
other Vv. as to the forward position of 
‘brethren.’ The aor. ékAfasnre is trans- 
lated by different auxiliaries, ‘ye are,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘ were,’ Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘have been,’ Gen., Bish., Auth. 
Your liberty| So Tynd , Cov. (both), Cran., 
Gen.: ‘liberty, Auth., Bish.; ‘fredom,’ 
Wicl.; ‘this liberty, Rhem. 

Your love] ‘Love,’ Auth., and the other 
Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., charite; Cov., 
‘the loue.’ 

14. The whole] ‘ All the,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ everi lawe.’ 
Saying] ‘Word,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. 

16. Now TI say] ‘ This I say then,’ 
Auth ; ‘Isaye,’ Tynd., Cov , Cran.; ‘then 
(‘and,’ Wiel.) ‘I say,’ Gen., Bish. 

By] ‘In the,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl, Cov. (Test.), which omit 
the article. Shall in no wise] 
‘Shall not,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.). Gen., 
Bish; ‘ye schalen not parfourme,’ Wiel ; 


180 GALATIANS. Crap. V. 17—24. 
the lust of the flesh. ” For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, 
and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed the one to 
the other, that ye may not do the things ye may wish. ™ But, if 
ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. ™ Now the 
works of the flesh are manifest, of which kind are, — fornication, 
uncleanness, wantonness, * idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jeal- 
ousy, deeds of wrath, caballings, dissensions, factions, ** envyings, 
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I 
tell you beforehand, as I also told you beforehand, that they which 


do all such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ™ But 


the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, benevo- 
lence, goodness, trustfulness, * meekness, temperance: against all 
such things there is no law. ™ Now they that are Christ’s have 


‘and fulfill not’ (imper.), Tynd., Cran.; 
‘so shall ye not fulfyll,’ Cov.; ‘shal not 
accomplish,’ Rhem. 

17. Are opposed] ‘Are contrary,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ben 
adversaries togidre.’ That ye may 
not] Comp. Wiel.: ‘so that ye cannot do, 
ete.,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
Cov. (Test.), ‘that the thynges that ye 
will, ye do not the same;’ Fhem., ‘that 
not what things soever you wil, these 
you doe.’ or] ** And,’ Auth. 
Ye may wish] ‘ The things that ye would,’ 
Auth., Gen. (‘the same’); ‘that ye wyl- 
len,’ Wicl.; ‘that which ye wolde,’ Tynd., 
Cov.; ‘the thynges that ye wyll,’ Cov. 
(Test.); ‘whatsoever ye wolde,’ Cran; 
“what ye wolde,’ Bish.; ‘what soever 
you will,’ hem. 

18. By] So Wiel , Cov. (Test ), Rhem.: 
“of,” Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

19. Of which kind are] ‘Which are 
these,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., and Cov. (Test.), ‘which are.’ 
Fornication| ** Adultery, fornication,’ 
Auth. Wantonness] ‘ Lascivious- 
ness,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem ‘leecherie.’ 

20. Sorcery, etc.] ‘ Witchcraft, hatred, 
* variance, *emulations, wrath, strife, 
seditions, heresies,’ Auth , Gen.; ‘ witche- 


craft. . . variance, zele. . . sectes,’ Tynd., 
Cran., Bish. 


21. Tell you beforehand] ‘Tell you 


before,’ Auth. and the other Vv. (Cov. 
Test., ‘afore’) except Wiel., ‘seie;’ 
‘foretell you,’ Rhem. Told you 
beforehand | ‘ Have also told you in time 
past,” Auth; ‘haue told you to for,’ 
Wicl.; ‘haue tolde you in tyme past,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘haue tolde you,’ 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘haue foretold you,’ Rhem. 

All such things] ‘Such things,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. 
(both), ‘such.’ 

22. Benevolence] ‘Gentleness,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘benyng- 
nite,’ Wiel., Rhem. Trustfulness| 
‘Faith,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘ faithfulness.’ 

23. All such things] ‘Such,’ Auth. and 
the other Vy. except Weel., ‘suche 
thingis.’ 

24. Now they] ‘And they,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Rhem.; ‘but,’ Cov. (both); ‘for,’ 
Gen.; ‘ they truly,’ Bish. Tynd and Cran. 
omit. Have crucified] So Auth. and all 
the other Vv. Here again it seems 
desirable to preserve the perfect in 
translation, as the English aor. tends 
to refer the crucifixion too exclusively 
to the past; see notes on verse 4, 


a 
rn ~ or 
Peo >.) ore 
i. <A ae 


Cuap. VI. 1—7. GALATIANS. 


181 
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. ~ If we Live by 
the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. * Let us not become 
vain-glorious, provoking one another, envying one another. 


CHAPTER VI. 


* BRETHREN, if a man should be even surprised in a fault, ye 
which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; 
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. * Bear ye one 
another’s burdens, and thus shall ye fulfil the law of Christ. -? For 
if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he 
deceiveth his own mind. * But let each man prove his own work, 
and then shall he have his ground of boasting only in what con- 
cerneth himself, and not in what concerneth the other. ° For each 
man must bear his own load. 

6 But let him that is taught in the word share with him that 
teacheth in all good things. ‘ Be not deceived; God is not 
mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 
§ For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap 


25. By the...by the] So Wiel. (‘bdi. 
Spirit’): Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
‘in the... in the.’ 

26. Become] So Cov. (Test.): ‘be,’ 
Auth., Tynd, Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; 
‘be made,’ Wicl., Rhem. Vain- 
glorious] So Tynd, Cov.: ‘desirous of 
vain glory,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicl , ‘ coueitous of veyne glory.’ 


CuaptTer VI. 1. Should be even sur- 
prised] ‘Be overtaken” Auth., Cov. 
(both) ; ‘be oceupied,’ Wicl.; ‘be fallen 
by chance, Tynd.; ‘be taken,’ Cran. ; 
‘by oceasion,’ Gen., Bish.; ‘be predccu- 
pated,’ Rhem. 

2. Thus shall ye, ete.] *‘So fulfil,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen. 

3. Deceiveth his own mind| So Cran. ; 
‘deceiveth himself,’ Auth., Cov. (both) ; 
‘bigilith hym silf,’ ‘Wicl. ; ‘deceaveth 
hym silfe in his ymaginacion,’ Tynd., 
Gen. ; ‘in his own fansie,’ Bish. ; ‘se- 
duceth himself,’ Rhem. 


4, Each| So Wiel. ; ‘every,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. His ground 
of boasting etc.| ‘Rejoicing in himself 
alone and not in another,’ Auth., and 
similarly, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; 
‘haue glorie,’ Wiel. ; ‘so shall he rejoice 
only in himself,’ Cov. (Test. ); ‘have the 
glorie,’ Rhem. 

5. Each] So Wicl.; ‘every,’ Auth. 
and all the remaining Vv. Must 
bear] ‘Shall bear,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. Load] ‘ Burden,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘charge.’ 

6. But let him] So Cov. (both) : ‘let 
him,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘and let him.’ 

8. Unto his own flesh| ‘To his flesh,’ 
Auth., Gen.; ‘inhis fleisch,’ Wiel., Tynd., 
Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.; ‘upon the 
fleshe,’ Cov. 7 Unto the Sp.| ‘To 
the Spirit, Auth. Eternal life] ‘ Life 
everlasting,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wiel., Cov., (Test.), which pre- 
serve the more correct order ‘ everlasting 


GALATIANS. Cuap. VI. 9—15. 


182 
corruption ; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit 
reap eternal life. ° But let us not lose heart in well-doing ; for in 
due season we shall reap, if now we faint not. ” Accordingly, 
then, as we have opportunity, let us do what is good unto all men, 
but especially unto them who are of the household of faith. 

1 See in what large letters I have written unto you with mine 
own hand. ” As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, 
THEY constrain you to be circunicised ; only that they should not 
suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. ” For not even do they, 
who are being circumcised, themselves keep the law; but they 
desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your 


flesh. 


* But far be it from ME to glory, save in the cross of our 


Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I 


unto the world. 


life.’ It is not desirable to invert the or- 
der in English except when the adjective 
in the original occupies the emphatic, 7. e. 
the first place; comp. Winer, Gr. § 59, 
2, p. 464. On the translation of aidénos, 
comp. notes on 2 Thess. i. 9 (Transl.). 

9. But] ‘And, Auth., Wiel., Cov. 
(Test.); the rest omit 5€ in translation. 
Let us not lose heart] ‘Let us not *be 
weary,’ Auth., and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘faile,’ Wicl., Rhem. ; 
‘faynte,’ Cov. ('Test.) Tf now] < If,’ 
Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘not failynge,’ Wicl., 
Rhem. ; ‘ without werynes,’ Tynd., Cran.; 
‘without ceassynge,’ Cov.; ‘not ceas- 
synge,’ Cov. (Test.). 

10. Accordingly then, etc.] ‘As we have 
therefore,’ Auth. ; ‘therefor while,’ Wicl., 
and similarly the remaining Vv. 

What is good] ‘Good,’ Auth. But 
especially] So Rhem., Coverd. ( ‘spe- 
cially’), and sim. Wrel., ‘but moost;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘but moost of all:’ ‘and 
specially,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; Auth., 
Bish. alone omit 8é in translation. If 
by the fine idiomatic turn ‘of the house- 
hold,’ ete., nothing more be meant than 
close and intimate union, it may be advan- 
tageously retained : see, however, notes. 


* For neither doth circumcision avail any thing, 


11. See] So Wicl. (‘se ye’), Rhem.: 
‘ye see,’ Auth, Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ be- 
holde,’ Tynd, Cov. (both). In what, 
etc.| ‘ How large a letter,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘with how many 
words,’ Cov. ; ‘with what manner of let- 
ters, Rhem., and sim. Wicl.; ‘with what 
letters,’ Cov. (Test.). 

12. That they, etc.] ‘ Lest they should,’ 
Auth., Cov. (both), Cran.; ‘that thei 
suffre,’ Wicl.; because they wolde not,’ 
Tynd., Gen.; ‘that they may not,’ 
Rhem. 

13. Not even, etc.] ‘ Neither they them- 
selves who are circumcised, Auth. and 
all the other Vv. ‘ The circum- 
cision-party,’ is far from an improbable 
translation ; see notes. They desire] ‘ De- 
sire,’ Auth. 

14. Far be it] So Wicl., Cov., (Test.) : 
‘God forbid that I should glory,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. To glory| 
‘That I should glory,’ Auth. Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘to haue glorie,’ Wicl.; ‘that I 
shuld rejoyce.’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
‘to rejoyce,’ Con. (Test ). 

15. For neither, ete.] ‘For *in Christ 
Jesus neither circumcision availeth,’ 


Auth. 


Cuar. VI. 16—18. GALATIANS. 183 
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. “ And as many as walk 
according to this rule, peace de upon them, and mercy, and upon 
the Israel of God. ™ Henceforth let no man trouble me: for I 
bear in my body the marks of Jesus. 

% The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, 
brethren. Amen. 


16, Upon] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘on, Auth. ‘and here aftir.’ Of 
and the remaining Vv. except Cov. Jesus] ‘ Of the * Lord Jesus,’ Auth. 
(Test.), ‘unto them ;’ Gen., ‘shal be to 18. The grace] ‘ Brethren, the grace,’ 
them. Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 

17. Henceforth] ‘From henceforth, Cov. (Test.), Rhem., which adhere to 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., the order in the original. 


THE END. 


7 Sew 
aes Ea : bog : a ~ 
he MG 
BS ELS AS ParrSS ery 
eit te 


> 
5 ¥ 7 
oH S908 74 Se. 
‘ ind go Ae 
posits 


| ee 





WARREN F. DRAPER, 
PUBLISHER AND BOOCOESELLER, 
ANDOVER, MASS. 

Publishes and offers for Sale the following, which will be sent post paid on receipt of the sum named. 





GUERICKE’S CHURCH HISTORY. Translated by W. G. T. Suepp, 
Brown Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 433 pp. 8vo. $2.25. 


This volume includes the period of the ANCIENT CuuURCH (the first six centuries, A. C.) or the 
Apostolic and Patristic Church. 


We regurd Professor Shedd’s version, now under notice, as a happy specimen of the TRANS- 
FUSION rather than a TRANSLATION, which many of the German treatises should receive. 
The style of his version is far superior to that of the original.— [Bib. Sacra, Jan. 1858. 


DISCOURSES AND ESSAYS. By Pror. W. G. T. SHEpD. 271 pp. 
12mo. 85 cts. 


Few clearer and more penetrating minds can be found in our country than that of Prof. 
Shedd. And besides, he writes with a chaste and sturdy eloquence, transparent as crystal ; so 
that if he goes DEEP, we love to follow him. If the mind gets dull, or dry, or ungovernable, 
put it to grappling with these masterly productions. — [Congregational Herald, Chicago. 

The striking sincerity, vigor, and learning of this volume will be admired even by those read- 
ers who cannot go with the author in all his opinions. Whatever debate the philosophical ten- 
dencies of the book may challenge, its literary ability and moral spirit will be commended every 
where. — New Englander. 

These discourses are al marked by profound thought and perspicuity of sentiment.— 
Princeton Review. 


LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. By 
Pror. W.G.T. SHEDD. 128 pp. lémo. 60 cents. 
Contents. — The abstract Idea of History — The Nature and Definition of Secular History. 
— The Nature and Deiinition of Church History.— The Verifying Test in Church History. 
The style of these Lectures has striking merits. The author chooses his words with rare skill 
and taste, from an ample vocabulary, and writes with strength and refreshing simplicity. The 
Philosophy of Realism, in application to history and historical theology, is advocated by vigor- 
ous reasoning, and made intelligible by original and felicitous illustrations. — New Englander. 
Professor Shedd has already achieved a high reputation for the union of philosophic insight 
with ginuine scholarship, of depth and clearness of thought with force and elegance of style, 
and for profound views of sin and grace, cherished not merely on theoretical, but still more on 
moral and experimental grounds. — Princeton Review. 


OUTLINES OF A SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC, From the German 
of Dr. FRANCIS THEREMIN, by WILLIAM G.T.SHEDD. Third and Revised 
Edition, with an Introductory Essay by the translator. pp. 216. 12mo. 75 cts. 
This is a work of much solid value. It is adapted to advanced students, and can be read and 

reread with advantage by professed public speakers, however accomplished they may be in the 

important art of persuasion. This edition isan improvement upon the other, containinga new 
introductory essay, illustrating the leading position of the work, and a series of questions adapt- 
ing it to the use of the student. — Boston Recorder. 

It is not a work of surface suggestions, but of thorough and philosophic analysis, and, as such, 
is of great value to the student, and especially to him who habitually addresses men on the most 
important themes. — Congregational Quarterly. 

The Introductory Essay which Professor Shedd has prefixed to this valuable Treatise, is elab- 
orate, vigorous, impressive. It excites the mind not only to thought, but also to the expression 
of thought, to inward and outward activity. The whole volume is characterized by freshness 
and originality of remark, a purity and earnestness of moral feeling. — Bid. Sacra, 1859. 


a 


Publications of W. F: Draper, Andover. 





BIBLIOTHECA SACRA AND BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, 
E. A. PARK and S. H. Taytor, Editors. Published at Andover on the first 
of January, April, July and October. 


Each number contains about 225 pages, making a volume of 900 pages yearly. This work is 
larger, by more than 100 pages per volume than any other religious quarterly in the country. 


This Review is edited by Prof. E. A. Park, of the Theological Seminary, and S. H. Taylor, 
LL. D., of Phillips Academy, Andover. Among its regular contributors, are eminent scholars 
connected with various theological and collegiate institutions of the United States. Its pages 
will be enriched by such contributions from Foreign Missionaries in the East as may illustrate 
the Biblical Record ; and also by such essays from distinguished naturalists as may elucidate 
the agreement between Science and Religion. It is the organ of no clique or party, but aime 
to exhibit the broad scriptural views of truth, and to cherish a catholic spirit among the con- 
flicting schools of evangelical divines. 

“ Questions of philosophy and the analysis of language, of Biblical and literary criticism, of 
the constitution and life of the Church of Christ, of practical morality and evangelical religion, 
of biblical geography ané the interpretation of prophecy, and the relation of Science to Religion; 
together with emple hterary intelligence, both foreign and domestic,”— these make up the 
matter of each number, and cannot fail to interest Christian Scholars, Clergymen and Laymen. 


TK erms.— $4.00 per annum. A discount of 25 per cent. will be made to those who pay 
STRICTLY IN ADVANCE, and receive the numbers directly from the office of publication, post- 
age UNPAID. When supplied by agents, $3,50, in advance ; otherwise $4 00. 

Postage.-— The postage is five cents per number, or twenty cents per year, te any part 
of the United Siates. 


TESTIMONY OF THE PRESS. 


The articles, treating of interesting themes useful to the general scholar as well as the theolo- 
gian, fully sustain the very high character of this quarterly, which, restricted to no sect, and 
broad in its range of thought and instruction, has commended itself to the best minds in our 
own and foreign lands. [Boston Courier. 

This, asis well known, is the great religious Quarterly of New England, if not of the coun- 
try, and 1s held in high estimation in England and Germany as the principal organ of biblical 
and philological criticism in the English language. 

This work as now conducted, deserves a large and generous patronage from clergymen of all 
denominations. [Puritan Recorder. 

No Parish is either poor or rich enough to be able to do without its benefit to its pastor. 
{Congregationalist. 


INDEX TO THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA AND BIBLICAL 
REPOSITORY, Volumes 1 to 13 (from 1844 to 1856.) Containing an Index 
of Subjects and Authors, a Topical Index, and a list of Scripture Texts. Pa- 
per covers, $1.75; cloth, $2.00; half goat, $2.50. 


BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, First Series, comprising the twelve volumes 
from the commencement of the work to 1838. The first four volumes contain 
each four numbers ; the succeeding eight volumes, two numbers each. A few 
sets only remain. 

The Biblical Repository was commenced at Andover, in 1831. The present series of the Bib- 
liotheca Sacra was commenced in 1844. The two periodicals were united in 1851. The volume 
of the combined periodicals for the present year (1858) is the forty-sixth of the Biblical Repos- 
itory and the fifteenth of the Bibliotheca Sacra. 





VIEW OF ANDOVER. A finely executed Lithographic View of An- 
dover, on a sheet 18 by 24 inches, exclusive of the margin. 


The sheet contains a view of the ‘Town from the west, and an enlarged delineation of the 
Literary Institutions in the border. It will be sent by mail, post paid, on receipt of $1,25. 


Publications of W. F. Draper, Andover. 


—_—, -_ 


THEOLOGIA GERMANICA,. Which setteth forth many fair lineaments 
of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a Perfect Life. 
Edited by Dr. Prrrrrer, from the only complete manuscript yet known. 
Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. With a Preface by 
the Rev. CHARLES KinGsLeEy, Rector of Eversley; and a Letter ‘o the Trans- 
lator, by the CHEVALIER Bunsen, D.D, D.C. L., etc.; and an i 1troduction 
by Pror. Catvin E. Stowk, D. D. 275 pp. 16mo. Cloth, $1.00: calf, $2 00. 


This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it into notice by an edition which 
he published in 1516, of which he says : “ And I will say, though it be boasting of myself, and 
‘I speak as a fool,’ that, next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book hath ever come into my 
hands whence I have learnt, or would wish to learn, more of what God and Christ, and man, 
and all things, are.” ~ 

“The times and the circumstances in which this most rich, thoughtful, and spiritually 
quickening little treatise was produced, — the national and ecclesiastical tendencies and infiu- 
ences which invested its author, and which gave tone, direction, and pressure to his thoughts, 
—are amply and well set forthin the preface by Miss Winkworth, and the letter of Bunsen. 
The treatise itself is richly deserving of the eulogies upon it so emphatically and affectionately 
uttered by Prof. Stowe and Mr. Kingsley, and, long before them, by Luther, who said that it 
had profited him ‘ more than any other book, save only the Bible and the works of Augustine.’ 
Sin, as a universal disease and defilement of the nature of man ; Christ, as an indwelling life, 
light, and heavenly power; Holiness, as the utmost good for the soul; and Heaven, as the 
state or place of the consummation of this holiness, with the consequent vision of God, and 
the ineffable joy and peace, — these are the theme of the book. And it has the grand, and in 
this day the so rare and almost singular merit, of having been prompted by a real and deep relig- 
ious experience, and of having been written, not with outward assistance, but with the enthu- 
siasm, the spiritual wisdom, and the immense inward freedom and energy, of a soul itself con- 
scious of union with Christ, and exulting in the sense of being made, through him, ‘a partaker 
of the Divine nature.’ 

“Those who have known the most of Christ will value most this “ golden treatise.” Those 
whose experience of the divine truth has been deepest and most central will find the most in 
it to instruct and to quicken them. ‘To such it will be an invaluable volume worth thousands 
upon thousands of modern scientific or hortatory essays upon ** Religion made easy.” 

“Itis printed by Mr. Draper, at the Andover press, in the old English style, with beautiful 
carefulness and skill, and is sent, post paid, to all who remit to him one dollar.” — [Independent. 





The work is at once a literary curiosity and a theological gem.—[Puritan Recorder. 

This little volume which is brought out in antique type, is, apart from its intrinsic value, a 
curiosity of literature. It may be regarded as the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation. — 
[Evening Traveller. 


WRITINGS OF PROFESSOR B. B. EDWARDS. With a Memoir 
by Proressorn Epwarps A. Park. 2vols. 12mo. $2.00. 


These works consist of seven Sermons, sixteen Essays, Addresses and Lectures, and a Me- 
moir by Professor Park. 


ERSKINE ON THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE 
TRUTH OF REVEALED RELIGION. Third American, from the Fifth 
Edinburgh Edition. 139 pp. 16mo. 50 cents. 

“The entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which it advocates to intelligent 
and considerate minds. It is one of the best, perhaps THE best, of all the discussions of this 
momentous subject.” —[Congregationalist. 

“This argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the Truth of Revealed Religion, is 
the most compact, natural and convincing we have ever read from aay author.” — (Chris. Chron. 


“No man ought to consider himself as having studied theology, unless he has read, and pon- 
dered, and read again, ‘Erskine on the Internal Evide.ce.'” —[The Independent. 


THE ANGEL OVER THE RIGHT SHOULDER. By the author 
of Sunny Side.” 29 pp. .3mo. 20 cents. 


Standard English Works, 


FOR SALE BY 


W. F. DRAPER, ANDOVER, MASS. 


The postage will be prepaid, unless otherwise stated. 





CHILLIN GWORTH’S RELIGION OF THE PROTESTANTS. 
lvol. 12mo. 41,12 


CONYBEARE & HOWSON’S LIFE AND EPISTLES OF 8ST. 
PAUL. 2vols. 8vo 7,00. 


CALVIN’S IN Bese ses CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY’S ED. 
8vols. Boards 5,00 


at oace gh *S INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
vols. 8vo 


DAVISON’S SERMONS ON PROPHECY. ivol. 8vo. $3,00. 
DONALDSON’S COMPARATIVE HEBREW GRAMMAR. $1,25. 


FULLER’S (ANDREW) WORKS. 1 vol. Royal 8vo. thick. $3.50. 
Weighing over 4 ibs., this work cannot be sent by mail. The price named does 
not include tr ausportation 


HENRY’S (MATTHEW) COMMENT. ON THE PSALMS. $1,25. 
wae RY’S (PAUL) LIFE AND TIMES OF CALVIN. 2 vols. 8yo. 


HENDERSON’S (DR. E.) COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. $3,7. 
3 COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS. $3,00. 
" “ EZEKIEL. $5,00 
i INSPIRATION  $1,50. 


JAHN’S HEBREW COMMONWEALTH. 42,25. 
LEIGHTON’S WORKS. 2vols 8yo. $4,00 
MACNAUGHT ON INSPIRATION, #1,50. 
MW’CRIE’S LIFE OF JOHN KNOX. $1,25, 


NEANDER’S PLANTING AND TRAINING OF THE CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH. 2vols Bohn’s. Lib. $2,25. 


PORTER’S HOMILETICS. 1,12 
STOUGHTON’S SKETCHES OF THE PURITANS. $1,25. 


TAYLOR’S (ISAAC) ELEMENTS OF THOUGHT. 1,00 
ENTHUSIASM. $1,25. 
FANATICISM $150. 
i HOM:. EDUCATION  §1,38. 
" SATURDA. EVENING. 41,50. 


TAYLOR’S (JEREMY) WORKS. 8vols. Royal, 8vo. $12.00. 
Weighing over 4 lbs, this work cannot be sent by mail. The price named 
does not include transportation. 


VEITCH’S IRREGULAR GREEK VERBS. £2,00 
WHATELY, DIFFICULTIES IN WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL. 
BZ 50, 


PECULIARITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. $2,25. 
DANGERS TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. $2,25, 
HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 68 cts. 
CHARACTER OF OUR LORD’S APOSTLES. $1,25. 
INFANT BAPTISM. 33 cts. 


SS eCS om 


{English Works imported to order on the most reasonable terms.) - 











THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 


AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 


WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 


DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
OVERDUE. 


LD 21—100m-12,’43 (8796s) 





UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 


» me 


eee 





rt Lee * eed eal RA or ge a ee ew 


ee ae a af et ae ee cater ipeed . ’ Ee ot P calaa wh ats oft BA a hlirr aihy Biny deat ; > : F 
ew BEI PG! wt GFT aD nh Pa ET Wd a Srna nan Ue nLNe: eae earicrie Lor EW See EL IOr ek eee LEO ee ee Ee htiertiien iti d tn ith vialetta dist diy tie tir dy ty Cre Lior tie Cited hod FPO DODD ML PAA BPE A AAD AG Lh it 





LOST SIS OS OT OL IS LL PL LP PLS LTS LA RSL LEG LPS A A AMON AACA A AA AAA MAA AN AMAA Mad 
52 OES 8 ad * iP 9)? ah ot * = Sed” RO GSS” Si Sn sn SCPE Se SY ee eM SS On ie eT ee A A ne Pi PN A Me Ts a ete Pine Oe eS lO Sik Pn et oh 28" oh 8 ODE NG lt AM A it th cath Siri eet cls 
a Pe Si Ee Rn Bi la he Soak poe es enna aeps aed iS tA . : ’ , ; ‘ : 


pale «FEN he AP LA Me mn Han MD ka ie ies nd Ree CAD Nice age te ig IE. 3 A lg Mp cg AA, lO pale dg RE BOLD LNs A LE A ME Ae ti titan wth cial a tt ls dae all 5 eh Laie the at 






eas teeth i i series RR Lng BR A att BS Eo eet pemecbine RAT RE nh ce = angele Metal) MAS Roses 
; - * agi ae! nat id RA cotta sad cat ny "ted at” at lth “mee adh * wih 
wd 0 ahd ed SP ae RE AG NE Nd LSC EN 

“ Se, , we aw ee a ee aw ee a a a 4 0 wis . wv a ae) ee ee a a dined Se ae BD a dt ah we” Bid *<a* a" ht PD DE AO BOD A DA A edb 
Se Sa ak Sol Sa ES opt ae WH SARA GE RNY Ln? ld i Sid ES ERE REY SBD ight ita na 8d NF ABA GE idl Abt 30 OA EMRE SEO AD ABN! ELVEN GE NOSE LASALLE YB EE 





ae ae en ee Bap Bad mem nt aw aw ee sate Pen eer eat ae no dieediadecd Lo PPD A ALP A BAA AOA RD AA AA AAA DIA AA hE A AA BE Ah hs 
i Sits I I et NE Se hd tet 2 gt AS EE NE EIEN AN Sih BE, NAN lo alah TN SAR SSE Sih SES ABN AE NGA OE AANA LADS ERDAS th th 2 Sta A oat 





Se 








; Fs a . ¢ 
et ae get a a te a er i er ae ee a ae ee a et ee te et i ee 4 Ph AAR BNA ANE BO OP AOA AAA NE AO ENA BAB! BD eb NO 8b al ae he ee a ee a ee a 
Ge EA ad et ORE ad QP OP OF 6 II A AP IB TD? Ad IT AOD ADO A BD ND NE Ab SEE ELC IP Ee VI ee Lae Ti tie eae Lie Le tle Lee 
a cgnieek Salk tad bale ahiae ice hoi cd *kp ay fale Seid hip teh sath Ao et e.g mba kh teig* uid! ep aba eb” ob *. : 2b ag wt ap mip * ‘a “ah 


alte Ae dead . 
Pte od da a 2 i NP OTB EBB OE RON PEE DO DEE Be 


OM EPRI DD DBE! DL BERR OD AP LE AOA DPA A AD DD Bl 





So IAP te BBP GI MP? PM a PII OP PD A PP PI” thee PE gina at oF yy Fe ew apy ROLLE pe ff 3 PLL LAD AO LAL PPA DADA AP DOD 
LP DOI PP POP LPL PLL PE PPA AAT BE Ti na ard i ee ee ‘ein a, ac ye ae a ee ae ine 4 OBA LL EL PED OS MAL RN ODA EtG 


aero ree tee tee ier ee ee Le et oe te ae 
lel ie es in ite dite. tn be adit didi 
DERE DD 





BBO SE EO RB DO 
le te thn, ten, ee ee te Pins ea 
PP <P OO 








PG Gh A PGP AEE EN AP TE" EY 





ROR tacts 2 





Pew a : a 
Na tides, OP, 
ee dah he eee 









Ip dn deedbidethed 


$ “4 Na ar a ee ow 


Er an, ; : ~ Peg ioe bho ee 

4 SHAS POP I GE BI EI ROM RI OY EI I” AYE" I$ POE AN” AP" ANA" EPP AOS BS ug eS ved soe ae 
le aa ad ar GP OP? a al h" ah BP a aU LP? BO” * : s %, : . 
Ta LO AE A Ae A i i les ite ie tpn aeall 





PPA EN BLO 
ih? OSL BES 
PRS FPP PRI I? POPE GO EP IPO LD PAI” POL BLP LE Na 2 DI a8 ae PRET es PS Apap 








peat Cia ae aT ae ee De te de do i Adon Re A dae 
Pe A. dk dct ddd sts ft Ftd Oden 


By ahd ade are Ben ge” Barges 
sora i pre erie’ 
roe) PN: 





j aioe 


re 


